outdoor recreation resources · outdoor recreation is as broad and diverse as america itself. it...

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carter J. Beta1Donald B. K. English

H. Ken Cordell

Invited Papers:

Kimberly H. Anderson, USDA Forest ServiceCheryl S. Beeler, Florida State University

V. Robert Leeworthy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDouglas McEwen, Southern Illinois University

Daniel D. McLean, Indiana UniversityHugh Morris, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

Gary L. Rankel, USDI, Bureau of Indian AffairsGeorge H. Siehl, Congressional Research Service (Retired)

Joan W. Tanner-i, National Scenic Byways ClearinghouseGeorge L. Peterson and James M. Williams, USDA Forest Service

Donald W. Fisher and Lyle Laverty, USDA Forest ServiceRodger Schmitt, Michelle M. Dawson, Hal Hallett, and Cal McCluskey, Bureau of Land Management

Merle Van Horne, National Park ServiceTerry Villanueva, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard A. Crysdale, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Retired)R. Scott Jackson, David J. Wahuqand H. Roger Hamilton, US Army Corps of Engineers

James DeLoney, Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentRoger L. Moore and Mark I. Ivy, North Carolina State University

Ney C. Landrum,National Association of State Park DirectorsJohn F Dwyer, USDA Forest Service

Robert D. Bixler, Cleveland MetroparksEdward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

Wilfred E. Richard, Outdoor Ventures North, Inc., and Lloyd C. Bland,The Irland Group Forestry Consultants

Connie Coutellier, American Camping AssociationStacy Gardner, National Ski Areas Association

Chris Frado, Cross Country Ski Areas AssociationGilbert M. Clark, International Inline Skating Association

Acknowledgments:The authors appreciate the valuable suggestions of Dr. Dean F. Tucker and Dr. Robert D. Bixler and importantcontributions made by Chris Gray, John Hayes, Cassandra Johnson, and Virginia Lasly.

‘Carter .I. Betz is Outdoor Recreation Planner, Donald B. K. English is Research Social Scientist, and H. Ken Cordell is Research Foresterand Project Leader, all with Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Research, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Sta-tion, Athens, Georgia.

40 Outdoor Recreation in American Life

INTRODUCTION

Outdoor recreation is as broad and diverse as America itself. It covers a wide spectrum of resources,from the most pristine wilderness setting to urban streets and playgrounds. At its broadest definition, outdoorrecreation is any leisure activity that takes place out-of-doors, regardless of setting. Under this definition,most outdoor recreation in the United States probably occurs very close to where people live-in backyards,on streets and playgrounds, and in local neighborhoods. Much of this recreation can be characterized asunstructured “play” or relaxation. This chapter examines the outdoor recreation resources and settings thatare provided and managed by both government and the private sector. Outdoor recreation on rural privateland is covered more thoroughly in Chapter IV.

The traditional view of outdoor recreation focuses mostly on natural resources in rural settings such asparks, forests, lakes, and rivers. However, recreation resources also exist in urban environments where theyare extremely important in meeting urban demand for recreation experiences. This chapter attempts to pro-vide a broad-based overview of the current status of outdoor recreation resources in the United States. Thefocus is on the availability, distribution, and general description of the outdoor resources rather than on theirquality or condition.

We examine recreation resources and opportunities by the four types of providers: federal, state, localgovernments, and the private sector.? We also discuss the trend of partnerships in the provision of outdoorrecreation opportunities, especially two types that emerged in the 1990s: Scenic Byways and Watchable Wild-life opportunities. Where possible, we discuss changes and trends in recreation resources since the mid-1980s. Those trends, in turn, point to anticipated future trends.

Also included are brief articles from government agencies, environmental organizations, and recreationindustry groups. The authors of these articles address issues and trends that have emerged over the pastdecade or so and offer their outlooks for the future. Near the end of this chapter, we offer summary indexesthat describe categories of recreation resources and how they have changed over the past 10 years. Theseindexes provide a more general indication of how resources are distributed with respect to population, andhow their availability has changed in recent years. The final section of this chapter presents observationsabout the outdoor recreation resource base in the United States by summarizing the current status, trends,and future outlook.

FEDERAL LAND AND WATER RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

The Federal Estate

The most widely held images of outdoor recreation are probably those of adventurous backcountryvisitors trying to “get away from it all” and of families camping and sightseeing. Much of the land and waterwhere these activities occur are managed by the federal government. Despite the continually increasing de-mand for recreation opportunities close to home, the federal government manages thousands of special placesthroughout the country, many remote and distant, that are highly popular. Often, however, federal resources(especially water) are close to population centers. The popular perception of the “Great Outdoors” is that ofnational parks, national forests and other federal land. All estimates put the amount of federal land in theUnited States at around 650 million acres (Table III.1).3 This acreage represents about 28 percent of the totalland area in the United States of just under 2.3 billion acres. All Western states, except Hawaii, have morethan 25 percent of their total area in federal ownership. Nevada, Alaska, Utah, and Idaho each is more than 60percent of their area in federal ownership. Federal acres in the United States are roughly equal to an area thesize of the seven largest contiguous states-Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, andColorado.

ZThe authors assembled a national, county-level database (called the “National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System”) cov-ering the four types of recreation providers from a variety of source datasets.

“Because of the enormous size of the Federal estate and the dynamic nature of land sales and swaps, inholdings, etc., it is difficult to getan exact total of Federal land at any given time. In this chapter, “Federal land” refers to only the resources held by the seven principalland-managing agencies of the Federal government and does not include Department of Defense land, land managed by the GeneralServices Administration and other miscellaneous agency resources. Defense Department land is covered elsewhere in this chapter butis not included in general references to “Federal land.”

Outdoor Recreation Resources 4 I

Table 111.1: Land and Water Area’ Administered by Federal Land-Managing Agenciesby Agency and Region, 1995

Region (1000 acres)

Agency North South Rocky Pacific Coast* U.S. TotalMountains

USDA Forest Service 11,957 12,900 100,093 66,665 191,615National Park Service 1,882 5,412 10,830 65,072 83,196Fish & Wildlife Service3 1,209 3,809 7,193 78,239 90,450Bureau of Land Management 388 796 144,237 122,219 267,640U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2,907 5,634 2,475 540 11,556Tennessee Valley Authority 0 1,032 0 0 1,032Bureau of Reclamation 0 197 5,470 854 6,521

All Agencies 18,343 29,780 270,298 333,589 652,010

‘Numbers may not sum exactly to totals because of rounding. Table does not include Department of Defense land or othermiscellaneous Federal agencies with minor land holdings.

‘Alaska accounts for 242.4 million of the Pacific Coast’s 333.6 million acres. Agency breakdown is: FS, 22.0 million; NPS,54.7 million; FWS, 76.8 million; BLM, 88.9 million. There is one COE project in Alaska with 19,709 acres.

3U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acreage includes National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas. About 23.6million acres of the 90.5 million acres of FWS managed land are not open for recreational use.

Sources: Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 1995.National Park Service, Master Deed Listing. State and County Report by State. As of October 31, 1995.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Natural Resource Management System (NRMS). 1994.Bureau of Land Management. Public Land Statistics. 1993.Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As of September 30, 1995.Bureau of Reclamation. Recreation Areas on Bureau Projects. 1992.Development of TVA Recreation Facilities Cumulative Through September 30, 1992.TVA Areas Above Full Pool Level, By County, September 30, 1987.

The West (Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions), including Alaska, accounts for just under 93percent of federal land or about 604 of the 652 million acres. Excluding Alaska, the West still accounts for over88 percent of the federal land. By contrast, the East (North and South regions) has only about 7 percent, eventhough it contains over 75 percent of the U.S. population-199.6 of 262.8 million people based on a 1995Census estimate. Despite the fact that the West has the fastest current and projected population growth rates,the great disparity between the location of federal land (a product of historical settlement patterns) and thepopulation distribution of the United States is not likely to change significantly in the near future.

Generally, the least populous states-e.g., Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming-have the greatestamounts of federal land. Many of the most heavily populated states-e.g., New York and New Jersey-havevery little federal land. California is a notable exception. It is the largest state in population, yet has a consid-erable amount of federal land. Because of topography, geologic features, and historic land uses, many outdoorrecreation experiences that depend on alpine elevations and vast stretches.of unroaded land are availableonly in the West.

Alaska, of course, is a special case. While Alaska is second only to Nevada in percentage of land areaowned by the federal government, it has over four times as much federal acreage. By itself, Alaska has overone-third of the country’s 6.52 million federal acres. Excluding Alaska reduces the ratio of federal to nonfederalland from more than one in every four U.S. acres to about one in every five acres.

The large majority of federal land is available for recreation. However, accessibility varies widely de-pending on the presence of roads and location with respect to population. Furthermore, not all federal land isavailable for all recreation activities. Federal land in Alaska is not very accessible to most Americans.. Unlike


most federal land, many national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are closed topublic use. These properties cover 23.6 million acres, most of which are in Alaska.

There are also other instances of federal properties that are unavailable for recreation use. The federalwater resource agencies-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Tennessee Valley Au-thority-have some dams and reservoir operations that are not open for recreation. However, such areasrepresent a very small percentage of their total property. Likewise, research natural areas, fish hatcheries,experimental areas, and similar properties generally are not open to public use. Some land, especially innational forests, is inaccessible because it is surrounded by private property or because private access roadshave been closed. The amount of such land is becoming significant enough to be of concern to federal landmanagers, especially the Forest Service.

ACCESS TO NATIONAL FOREST LhWY

(By George L. Peterson, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO; and James M. Williams, LandsSpecialist, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.)

BackgroundAs reported by the United States General Accounting Office (US GAO) (1992), limited access to the

national forests and other public lands is a significant problem that prevents the American public from fullyutilizing and enjoying these lands. During the early history of the USDA Forest Service, little thought wasgiven to public right of access. With some exceptions, adjacent landowners did not object to people crossingtheir lands to use the national forests. Unfortunately, the willingness of private landowners to accommodatethe public has diminished. Over the past few decades, the situation has changed dramatically with landown-ers increasingly closing historic routes of access. Existing roads and trails that have long provided publicaccess across private lands are being closed by landowners at an increasing rate. Some of the reasons for thischange-in behavior include a fear of vandalism, growing concern over liability, concern for spread of exoticvegetation, and general incompatibility between the owner’s use and public access.

Of the 465 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Manage-ment, about SO.4 million acres (roughly 14 percent) lack adequate public access (US GAO, 1992). Overbay(1993) reports that as of November 1993, 17.3 million acres, or approximately 9 percent of the 191 millionacres of National Forest System lands, did not have adequate access. Inadequate access, as defined by theGeneral Accounting Office in its report, means “that the federal government does not have the permanent,legal right for the public to enter federal land at the point(s) needed to use the land as intended by themanaging agency.” According to Overbay (1993), approximately 28,000 easements involving an estimated7,500 miles of rights-of-way were needed in 1993 to provide adequate access to the Forest Service lands. Themajority of needed easements are located in the Western regions where most of the inaccessible land islocated. Over 90 percent of inaccessible land is in the West, most of that (about 13.2 million acres) being inthe Rocky Mountains region.

The most immediately identifiable effect of inadequate access is seen in the reduction of the generalpublic’s ability to recreate on public land, including national forests. For example, over 10 percent of manag-ers surveyed for the GAO report (US GAO, 1992) stated that hunting and off-road vehicle use were greatly orextremely reduced due to the lack of adequate access. Other activities, such as hiking and viewing wildlife,have also been significantly affected. To a lesser extent, important management activities, such as habitatimprovement in support of biological diversity (4.2 percent of managers cited great or extreme interference),have been hampered by inadequate access. Activities and the percent of Forest Service supervisors and landmanagers who said inadequate access greatly or extremely reduced recreation opportunities were as follows:

Activitv PercentHunting 12.7Off-road vehicle use 10.2Hiking 7.6Viewing scenery and wildlife 5.9Driving for pleasure 5.1

‘This article is based in large part on Overbay (1993).

Outdoor Recreation Resources 43

Camping 4.2Horseback riding 4.2Mountain biking 4.2Fishing 3.4Wilderness area uses 3.4Rafting, canoeing, etc. 1.7Cross country skiing and snowmobiling 1.7Recreational mining 1.7Developed recreation site use 0.8Commercial uses (e.g., outfitters/guides) 0.8

The Existing SituationWith increased emphasis on recreation and wildlife resources and opportunities to promote rural eco-

nomic development, many individuals and interest groups are demanding that the Forest Service improveaccessibility to National Forest System lands (For example, see Times Mirror magazines, Inc.). Access needsare identified through the forest planning process mandated by the National Forest Management Act. Thisprocess allows for substantial public involvement and is an important tool in identifying those areas where thepublic feels a need for better access to the national forests. The Forest Service maintains an ongoing programto resolve access issues usihg a variety of authorities to accomplish program objectives. These include: (a) feesimple acquisition, the acquisition of all rights and interests associated with the land needed for access, and(b) perpetual access easements, which are irrevocable rights granted by private landowners for access acrosstheir property. Either type of access can be acquired through purchase, donation, exchange, or condemna-tion.

The GAO report shows that the Forest Service acquired public access to about 2.6 million acres duringfiscal years 1989 through 1991. Of these acquisition actions, approximately half were through perpetualeasements, a quarter through fee simple land acquisition, and another 17 percent through other methodssuch as cooperative agreements with other agencies or private entities. Only three percent were a result ofcondemnations, many of which were used to perfect title or to establish an equitable value for the propertyinvolved. The overwhelming majority of acquisitions were the result of an amicable transaction, beneficial toboth parties.

The principal funding source for the access program has been construction dollars, both road and trail.Historically, the road rights-of-way acquisition activities have been largely associated with the timber saleprogram. The program, with funding of $4.5 to $6.0 million in annual appropriations, has been declining,however. At current funding levels, the Forest Service is able to acquire about 37.5 road and trail right-of-wayeasements and eliminate the need for about 275 more on an annual basis through’land exchanges, acquisi-tions, and other means.

Acquisition of needed rights-of-way has also been hampered by changing public preferences. The in-creased number of closures of historic access facilities, a declining willingness of owners to sell their land orinterest in land, escalating land values, and ownership fragmentation all serve to complicate acquisition ef-forts. At the current rate of acquisition, adequate access to all national forest systems lands will not be guar-anteed in the next 40 years. According to Overbay (1993), however, the Forest Service does not need newauthorities to carry out its program of access acquisition, but this does not mean that improved performancein this area is not needed.

One of the major obstacles in providing access to public lands is a growing reluctance on the part ofcounty and state road agencies to defend the status of historic roads that are being gated and closed. Limitedresources are the prime reason for this trend. On a case-by-case basis, the Forest Service enters into coopera-tive agreements with local governments that allow use of these important means of access to be maintained.However, this is not a comprehensive approach. In the future, there will be a need to work with nationalassociations of state and local governments in developing incentives that will encourage them to maintainlegal rights, services, and travel-way facilities to and on National Forest System lands. In addition to theseactions, there is a need to review the adequacy of existing authority to defend, perfect, and maintain historicpublic rights-of-way that provide access to federal lands that might otherwise be abandoned.

As mentioned, liability considerations detract from the willingness of many private landowners to allowthe public access across their property. The Forest Service is addressing this problem by working to developcooperative agreements with private landowners, user groups, and state and local governments to meet the

4 4 Outdoor Recreation in American Life

need for reduced tort liability and enhanced law enforcement. There is also a need for the Department ofJustice and the USDA Office of General Counsel to continue to defend United States interests aggressively inprotection of existing rights.

The Forest Service public access program also receives attention through internal activities such asRenewable Resources Planning Act updates, the annual budgeting process, and the annual report of the ForestService. Resolution of identified access problems has also been included as a specific item in the ForestService’s annual management attainment report. For example, a 1988 memo from agency leaders to theregional foresters identified the problem of access to national forest lands as an emerging issue in much of theWest. Although the driving force behind acquisition of access had been resource harvesting and management,continuing to operate on that basis would not be effective because of increased concern about lack of accessfor recreation and other purposes. Regional foresters were directed to “get out in front on this issue” and“develop a program to acquire rights needed to provide access to the large acreage of land that does not haveadequate access.”

This question of access to public land is part of the larger problem of travel management, includingdevelopment, maintenance, and closure of access to and travel within national forest land. The more compre-hensive problem was addressed in the National Access and Travel Management Conference held in Denver inAugust of 1991. The Forest Service National Access and Travel Management strategy team participated in thatconference and followed up by preparing a report summarizing the issues and recommending a nationalstrategy for travel management (National Access and Travel Management Strategy Team, 1992). Then ChiefDale Robertson accepted the goal and strategy recommendations and appointed the associate deputy chief forthe National Forest System as national travel management coordinator. He also appointed a national travelmanagement coordinating council comprised of national staff directors (Robertson, 1992).

Assessment of Recent Progress and Future ProspectsAt the end of fiscal year (FY) 1996, the deputy chief for the National Forest System prepared a summary

of recentaccomplishments (Reynolds, 1996). In FY 1996, the Forest Service acquired a total of 569 road,trail, and other rights-of-way through their Rights-of-Way Acquisition Program. Furthermore, it secured 256perpetual access easements nationwide. Approximately 75 percent of both the rights-of-way and easementswere acquired in the western United States. Since FY 1992, the trend has been a decreasing number of bothright-of-way and easement acquisitions. Rights-of-way peaked at 729 nationally in FY 1993, and easementswere also greatest that year (387 easements in FY 1993) and the previous year (388 easements in FY 1992).From FY 1994 through FY 1996, easement acquisitions declined more than 25 percent from those peak years.Approximately 10 percent, or 17 million acres, of National Forest System lands lacked adequate access(Reynolds, 1996). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the number of temporary rights-of-way.These temporary solutions appeared to be the dominant access effort in some forest service regions. Landsand engineering staffs in each region were directed to “jointly monitor this activity to insure that these tem-porary actions arc consistent with Forest Service Policy” (Reynolds, 1996).

The 17 million acres, or 10 percent, of National Forest System lands lacking adequate access at theclose of FY 1996 shows little change from the situation described in the 1992 GAO report. As stated in thatreport, Forest Service land managers told GAO that 17.3 million acres of Forest Service land lacked adequateaccess in 1991. We may assume, therefore, that the statistical summaries in the GAO report continue to be areasonable assessment of the current situation.

Multiple-Use Agencies

The USDA Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manage the most land amongfederal agencies (Table 111.1). Together, the FS and BLM manage almost three-quarters of all U.S. federal landthat is open for outdoor recreation. These agencies have a multiple-use mandate in which outdoor recreationis one of several concurrent uses. As a result, a great deal of their acreage is undeveloped and suitable fordispersed activities such as hiking, backpacking, hunting, and off-road driving. Other uses, such as timberharvesting, grazing, mining, and watershed protection, may temporarily restrict outdoor recreation.

USDA Forest ServiceThe FS manages more than 191 million acres of national forests and national grasslands in 42 states.

About 87 percent of FS acreage is in the two Western regions, including 52 percent in the Rocky Mountains.The large majority of FS acreage is in undeveloped areas that the agency refers to as “general forest areas.”


The 1995 Report of the Forest Semite lists a total of more than 125,000 trail miles in the National ForestSystem. About 53 percent of the miles are classified as “maintained.” Almost two-thirds of the total trailmileage is located in six Western states-California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

The FS maintains developed recreation areas in the following categories: boating sites, swimming sites,camping sites, picnic grounds, ski areas, interpretive sites, and all other developed sites. In 1996, there were12,730 of these developed sites throughout the National Forest System, seven percent more than in 1992(Table 111.2). This net increase was due to the addition of boating sites, picnic grounds, and other developedsites. Despite the overall net gain in recreation sites, numbers of swimming, camping, interpretive, and skiingsites all decreased between 1992 and 1996.

The two Western regions account for just under 75 percent of FS developed recreation sites, a some-what smaller proportion than their shares of land. Eastern national forests have slightly more developedrecreation sites per acre than those in the West. Recreation sites in the East grew at the rate of 13 percentbetween 1992 and 1996, while those in the West grew only 5.0 percent. The Pacific Coast was the only regionwith a decrease in the number of sites, due mostly to a significant drop in the number of camping sites (15percent). Boating and swimming sites are the only types of recreation areas which are more plentiful in theeastern than in the western United States. The East had over half of the boating sites and two-thirds of theswimming sites in 1996.

Fees are charged at some FS recreation sites but not at others. Most sites are managed by the FS itself,but a substantial number are operated by concessionaires. About three-fourths of concessionaire-operatedsites charge a fee. Concessionaires operated just under half of the nearly 4,000 fee sites in 1996, compared toonly seven percent of nonfee sites. Despite the increased use of concessionaires to operate developed recre-ation sites, the number of these sites operated by the FS was almost four times greater than the numberoperated by concessionaires in 1996.

‘Mle RI.;?: Number of U.S. Forest Service-Developed Recreation Sites by ‘Qpe of Site and Region, 1992 and 1996l

me of RegionDeveloped Site Year North South RoClq Pacific U.S. Total

Mountains Coast

Boating sites 1992 448 227 323 218 1,2161996 474 262 385 226 1:347

Swimming sites 1992 121 106 61 35 3231996 107 99 66 36 308

Camping sites 1992 411 388 1,958 1,773 4,5301996 413 396 1,923 1,509 4,241

Picnic grounds 1992 265 260 596 343 1,4641996 273 312 710 369 1:664

Ski areas 1992 34 2 87 65 1881996 11 0 81 63 155

Interpretive sites 1992 23 10 195 117 3451996 34 17 211 67 329

AI1 other developed 1992 428 351 1,516 1,521 3,816sites 1996 604 481 2.003 1.598 4.686All developed sites 1992 1,730 1,344 4,736 4,072 11,882

1996 1,916 1,567 5,379 3,868 12,730

‘Includes fee and nont’ee sites. Each site is included in only one category.Source: USDA Forest Service. Washington Office: Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources Management.


Overall, more than 31 percent of the FS recreation sites charged a fee for public use in 1996. Thispercentage was up significantly from 1992, when about 26 percent of sites charged a fee. With the exceptionof ski areas, camping sites were the clear leader with almost two-thirds of the sites charging a fee. The Northled all other regions in proportion of fee camping sites with 69 percent. No other type of FS recreation site hadas many as 50 percent of sites charging a fee, the closest being swimming areas with 41 percent.

USDA Forest Service: Trends, Issues, and Futures in Outdoor Recreation

(By Donald W. Fisher, assistant director, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources, USDA Forest Ser-vice, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK; and Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA ForestService, Washington Office, Washington, D.C.)

Current Situation

The national forests play a significant role in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities in theUnited States with over 191 million acres of public lands. As the largest public provider of outdoor recreationin the country, the national forests received over 850 million visits in 1996. International visitation currentlyexceeds 78 million annually, reflecting growth of over 66 percent since 1987. With over 4,200 campgroundsand 60 percent of the nation’s alpine skier days, the national forests are increasingly the nation’s outdoorplayground.

Spending by recreationists visiting the national forests in 1996 contributed almost $100 billion to thenation’s gross domestic product, and more than 2.5 minion jobs were associated with these expenditures.Revenue to the U.S. Treasury from national forest recreation and special use fees exceeds $46 million annu-ally. -

The national forests serve an important niche in American society by providing programs and servicesthat are open and accessible to a diversity of people, communities, families, and organizations. The USDAForest Service is an agency of choice for a large, knowledgeable, and supportive group of customers andpartners. The national forests provide value to people’s lives by providing recreation opportunities for physi-cal, emotional, and spiritual renewal, as well as healthy productive forests for a diversity of other benefits.

The national forests provide a wide spectrum of outdoor opportunities, from the more developed to themost primitive, primarily in a forest setting. Developed areas, such as resorts, ski areas, visitor centers, devel-oped campgrounds, and boating facilities are highly valued by users. Natural settings offer opportunities forprimitive activities such as backpacking, fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing that attract many visitors. TheForest Service has developed and implemented a scenery management system to protect the inherent quali-ties of the forest landscape.

The National Forest System includes many unique and special areas for outdoor recreation. Theseinclude 18 national recreation areas, seven national scenic areas, four national monuments, 133 Scenic By-ways, 96 wild and scenic rivers, and four national scenic or historic trails. To enhance visitor information andinterpretive services, the Forest Service manages 55 major visitor centers, which host 10 million visitors ayear. For those seeking very primitive recreation opportunities, the national forests contain approximately 35million acres of wilderness. The national forests provide more than half the country’s network of trails withover 125,000 miles for hiking, riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. The national forests will hostall, or at least important components, of several upcoming events, such as the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial,the 1999 World Downhill Ski Championships, and the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Currently there are over 100,000 heritage sites inventoried on national forests, representing over 10,000years of human history. These range from the renowned Anasazi cliff dwellings in the Southwest to moresubtle indicators of our past, such as scatterings of obsidian chips from a maker of spear points. The ForestService’s “Windows on the Past” program enhances visitor use and enjoyment of heritage resources.

The Forest Service’s state and private forestry program works in partnership with states to assist com-munities in promoting tourism, recreation, and preventing human-caused wildfires. Much of the tourism andrecreation use in national forests is carried out by private recreation service providers through partnershipsand special-use permits. There are approximately 23,000 recreation special-use permit holders providing adiversity of recreation experiences for visitors.


Recent TrendsA number of recent trends are having a significant effect on national forest recreation opportunities.

Federal budgets are being reduced and are projected to continue declining. The same trend is projected forthe size of the federal work force. Therefore, the number of Forest Service recreation professionals availableto deliver good quality recreation products and services has fallen. The result is a loss of technical expertisewhen demand is dramatically increasing. Consequently, the Forest Service is finding it difficult to maintainthe level of visitor services offered in the past, and the backlog in maintenance of recreation facilities hasincreased. These trends have created an emphasis on the use of the private sector as partners in providingrecreational opportunities on public lands. This shift in delivery methods has resulted in new tasks and re-sponsibilities for the federal work force.

Community economic vitality is also receiving strong emphasis nationally, with a priority being placedon enhancement and revitalization of jobs at the community level. These factors result in a renewed emphasison collaborative stewardship to involve communities and the private sector more intimately in providingoutdoor recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands. These activities highlight the tradeoffscommunities face between economic growth and unencumbered rural lifestyles involving a more primitiveenvironmental setting.

These trends are encouraging the Forest Service to initiate and emphasize different ways of providingoutdoor recreation services for visitors and non-traditional customers. These include cost recovery throughvisitor fees, public/private ventures, expanded concession operations, and embracing partnerships andvolunteerism as an integral way of doing business.

Additional trends impacting recreation opportunities on national forests involve ecotourism. The re-cent growth in ecotourism has increased the demand for educational and interpretive services and has cre-ated a tremendous growth opportunity for commercial outfitting and guiding services. It has also resulted ingreater demand for a diversity of recreation experiences, such as hiking and backpacking, wildlife viewing,water-based activities, and camping. One of the fastest growing areas affecting use of the national forests isheritage tourism, which involves viewing and interpretation of historic and prehistoric sites. Much of nationalforest heritage tourism involves an additional component of existing opportunities, such as those provided byoutfitters’ and guides. The Forest Service’s emphasis on ecosystem management is also affecting outdoorrecreation management. Recreation activities and services are being managed to assure ecosystem sustainabilitywhile providing direct benefits to individuals, families, and communities.

Key Current Programs and InitiativesThere are a number of key programs and initiatives being implemented by the Forest Service to accom-

modate current trends affecting the way the agency has historically provided outdoor recreation services.Examples include a recreation fee demonstration, a tourism strategy, enhanced collaborative stewardship, anemphasis on public/private ventures, expanded opportunities for concession operations, expanded use ofpartnerships, volunteers, and cooperation with the National Forest Foundation.

A significant recent trend in recreation management affecting the national forests is a movement to-ward expanded visitor fees. This trend was emphasized by the recreation fee demonstration authorized projectin Public Law 104-134, the Omnibus Consolidated Rescission and Appropriations Act of 1996. This act ini-tially approved up to 50 fee demonstration projects on national forests. Authorization for 50 more projectsand a one-year extension of the program through September 1999 were given under the Interior and RelatedAgencies Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1997. The purpose of the program is to test ways of providingimproved customer service through many different methods of establishing, collecting, and reinvesting recre-ation use fees where they were collected. A critical component of the test is monitoring the public’s accep-tance of the increase in costs and the benefits they receive. The program is particularly important to theForest Service at a time of existing and projected declining federal budgets and work force. The projectedrevenue to be generated through the recreation fee demonstration during the start-up of fiscal year 1997 was$7.6 million. Initial evaluations show that while fees may be a useful tool, new fees are not universally ac-cepted by customers, and the program does have impacts on the work force for fee collection and security.

With travel and tourism being the world’s largest industry, the Forest Service is planning an integratedstrategy that will demonstrate commitment to community vitality and the tourism industry. The tourismstrategy will be a benefits-based management approach emphasizing collaboration and enhancements to peopleand the environment. This approach will produce measurable benefits to visitors, local residents, privateindustry, communities, and the recreation resources. Positive outcomes anticipated through this strategy


include enhanced physical, psychological, and spiritual health of people, rural economic development anddiversification, historic preservation, increases to the national gross domestic product, natural resource en-hancements, and an increase in partnership opportunities and volunteerism.

To provide enhanced public service, the Forest Service has embraced collaborative stewardship. Throughcollaborative stewardship, the agency is focusing on building sustained relationships with constituents, withan anticipated outcome of reduced adversity, appeals, and litigation. A cornerstone of collaborative steward-ship is the creation and maintenance of partnerships. This rapidly expanding activity is creating tremendousopportunities for the agency to provide high quality recreation products and services, and to develop a knowl-edgeable and supportive constituency.

In order to stimulate private sector participation in outdoor recreation services, the Forest Service isemphasizing public/private ventures. Through joint private and public-sector investment in recreation facili-ties and/or services on national forests, viable business opportunities may be made available to private indus-try, resulting in high-quality recreation experiences for visitors.

Concessioning recreation facilities and services is another area which is receiving strong emphasis bythe Forest Service. Through concession agreements the Forest Service, while working with the private sector,can continue to provide and enhance a diversity of recreation services and camping opportunities for thepublic.

The Forest Service has implemented an aggressive “Windows on the Past” program to provide visitorsaccess to heritage sites and experiences. This includes Passport in Time, the Historic Structure Rental pro-gram, and Heritage Expeditions. The Passport in Time is a highly popular program that pairs volunteers withnational forest archaeologists and historians to work on projects ranging from archaeological excavations torestorations of historic structures. The Historic Structure Rental program provides historic cabins and firelookout towers for public rental, offering a unique way to learn history. The Heritage Expeditions program isa component of the recreation fee demonstration, Under this program, the Forest Service and the privatesector co-host heritage resources expeditions, such as retracing historic explorers and visiting rock art siteswith professional conservators and interpreters.

To help improve the quality of service to national forest visitors, the Forest Service has adopted “Mean-ingful Measures.” Under this internal process, quality standards for work accomplishment are set, work isprioritized by visitor preferences, and work plans are developed consistent with program funding.

Future Trends, Issues, and DirectionsIn the foreseeable future, outdoor recreation participation will continue to increase, assuming contin-

ued economic stability and availability of fossil fuels. Increased use places greater demands on the naturalsettings available in national forests. Access to private lands for outdoor recreation will become increasinglyconstrained, as more lands are closed for public use. An increasingly urban population will seek out naturalsettings for recreation. This will result in greater demands and impacts on national forests, particularly thosein close proximity to urban areas.

Other public providers of outdoor recreation will be reaching visitor carrying capacity and will imple-ment limitations on visitation to avoid natural setting degradation. This is already happening in some nationalparks. As a result, some areas such as national forests, which have not reached carrying capacities, will seeincreased visitation. This increase will require development of management strategies and collaborative ac-tions to meet the demand effectively while continuing to maintain ecosystem sustainability.

Users of national forests are changing. Demographic shifts that are taking place will present uniquechallenges in providing outdoor recreation opportunities on national forests. Programs and services will needto be structured to serve an increasingly diverse, older, and more international visitor, while continuing toaccommodate the traditional forest recreationist.

New technology and equipment are constantly evolving or creating new recreation uses, such as im-proved 4-wheel-drive vehicles, snowboards, personal GPS units, cellular phones, and mountain bikes. Manag-ers of the future will be challenged to maintain compatibility of new technology and equipment uses withnational forest stewardship.

Research indicates that forest users are demanding increased access to accurate information they needto plan their recreation trips. Therefore, on-site, off-site, and computer technology accessible information willbe more important than ever in providing for visitor needs and ensuring a positive visitor experience.

With anticipated increased visitation to national forests in the future, greater pressures will be made onspecial areas, such as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Wild andScenic Rivers System. Preserving the inherent qualities of these special areas for future generations is and willremain a significant management challenge.


Heritage values are a growing interest to many Americans who enjoy tracing their cultural heritage andexamining various types of heritage information. As interest in heritage tourism continues to grow, manage-ment strategies will need to be in place to protect heritage resources on national forests, as well as provideexpanded opportunities for visiting historic and prehistoric sites.

The Forest Service is embarking on the creation of a national image marketing strategy. Although theprogram will ultimately embrace all program areas of the agency, it will initially focus on areas discussed inthis section and fish and wildlife management. The goals of the effort are to:

1. Develop a large, supportive, and knowledgeable constituency now and into the 21st century.2. Become a partner of choice for corporate America.3. Develop a positive image as the premier land-managing agency in America.4. Provide clarity in the public’s eye regarding the agency’s niche by both enhancing agency recognition

and creating distinction from other agencies.5c . Rally the internal force and focus this tremendous energy to expand capability to provide high-quality

products, services, and opportunities.6. Develop champions and support in Congress.7. Provide focus for agency activities with a consistent message to the public.8. Do a better job of managing the nation’s forests.

As a strategy for accommodating increasing outdoor recreation demands in the future, the Forest Service willbe developing a wide range of management tools and techniques, such as improved permit systems, increasedpublic/private sector investments, enhanced developed sites, improved and efficient fee systems, and in-creased emphasis on partnerships and volunteerism. In many instances, a balance will be needed betweenmore intensive management, preservation of unique areas, and providing public access to an ever increasingrange of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Bureau of Land ManagementThe BLM manages about 268 million acres, more than any other federal agency (Table 111.1). BLM land

is almost exclusively Western. Only about one million acres are located in the two Eastern regions. BLM landis nearly evenly split between the Rocky Mountain (54 percent) and Pacific Coast (46 percent) regions, but 89out of 122 million acres of the Pacific Coast BLM land is in Alaska. BLM acreage is often called “the landnobody wanted” because most of it is the residual that was neither homesteaded nor transferred to otheragencies. Most of the land is in dry and barren environments. For example, 69 percent of the total area ofNevada (the “Sagebrush State”) is BLM land. A major and controversial development occurred on BLM land inSeptember, 1996 when President Clinton created the 1.7-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante NationalMonument in southern Utah by executive fiat (Satchell, 1997a). This is the first national monument underjurisdiction of the BLM. Management of the area will be closely watched by many interests since it encom-passes some of the nation’s richest coal, oil, and natural gas reserves.

The BLM manages a variety of resources and facilities devoted to outdoor recreation. The publication ofRecreution 2000: A Strategic Hun in 1989 articulated the agency’s planning and policy direction for recre-ation management. BLM land is zoned into Recreation Management Areas (RMA), which are further classifiedas either Extensive or Special. Extensive RMAs are similar to the Forest Service general forest areas wheredevelopment is minimal and the emphasis is on dispersed recreation. They may contain recreation sites, buttypically, backcountry areas are not a part of Special RMAs. In Special RMAs, a specific commitment (i.e.,investment) has been made to provide recreation services or facilities.

Special RMAs outnumber Extensive RMAs almost two to one, but the acreage in each is reversed. Ac-cording to BLM’s 1994 Recreation Management Information System @MIS), there were 338 Special RMAscompared to 180 Extensive RMAs. The Special RMAs account for about 28.6 million acres, while ExtensiveRMAs account for about 193.5 million acres.” The BLM lists 2,213 designated recreation sites in the 1994RMIS. These may occur in either type of RMA, but more than two-thirds (1,484) are in Special RMAs. TheBLM manages 7.6 million acres developed specifically for recreation. In addition to dispersed use areas, thetypes of recreation sites listed in the RMIS indicate the variety of facilities provided by BLM: boat launches,cabins, campgrounds, caves, environmental education centers, picnic areas, resorts, swimming areas, trailheads, comfort stations, and visitor centers.

jAbout 45 million acres were not classified as either Special or Extensive RMAs.


Outdoor Recreation and the Bureau of Land Management

(By Rodger Schmitt, Recreation Group Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; Michelle M.Dawson, Partnership/Marketing Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; Hal Hallett, Out-door Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; and Cal McCluskey, Wildlife Biolo-gist, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, ID)

Background

The BLM in the Department of the Interior administers one-eighth of the nation’s original vast landholdings-the 1.8 billion acre public domain. In the nation’s earliest years, the federal government and Con-gress became the legal guardians of the public lands, where policy generally provided for the disposal of thepublic lands. Millions of acres of public land were set aside to establish Indian reservations, national parks,forests, wildlife refuges, and military reservations. The land disposal policy built the country’s economicfoundation, opened the West to settlement, and united the vast expanses of land into one nation. In 1812,Congress established the General Land Office (GLO) to administer the public domain. The passage of theTaylor Grazing Act in 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to provide active range management onpublic domain land. In 1946, the GLO and the U.S. Grazing Service merged to create the BLM.

Originally viewed as the “Great American Desert,” BLM land for years was regarded primarily as asource of livestock forage, timber, and energy and mineral resources. Since the 198Os, the BLM public landhas become more valued for its environmental resources, significant cultural resources, recreation opportuni-ties, and in an increasingly urban nation, its vast open spaces. The BLM’s mandate under the Federal LandPolicy and Management Act of 1976 requires the agency to manage the public land to accommodate manyuses, while_protecting the long-term health of the land.

Recreation Resources and ODportunities

The BLM public lands offer abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation notable for their undevel-oped, wild nature. Dispersed recreation activities that occur on BLM lands include, but are not limited to,camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, whitewater rafting, hang gliding, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, anddriving for pleasure. Examples of the diversity that recreationists enjoy include the solitude of Arizona’sAravaipa Canyon wilderness area, riding all-terrain vehicles in New Mexico’s North Dunes, whitewater raftingon Utah’s Green River, canoeing and island hopping in Minnesota, snowmobiling in Alaska, hunting for world-renowned big game in Colorado, fishing for steelhead trout in Idaho, retracing the Oregon Trail by horsebackin Oregon, and caving in Wyoming.

Modern explorers can hike, horseback ride, mountain bike, motorcycle, four-wheel drive, and crosscountry ski across trails on BLM public lands. The diverse terrain ranges from 14,000 foot summits in Cola-rado to the depths of Paria Canyon in Utah, from the Alaska wilderness to the geysers and cypresses ofCalifornia. The BLM public lands contain nine national historic trails, two national scenic trails, and 26national recreation trails encompassing nearly 5,000 miles. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) hobbyists, motor bik-ers, and horseback riders enjoy over I41 million acres for OHV, over 6,200 miles for motorbikes, and 17equestrian trails spanning almost 5,300 miles. An additional 4,500 miles of trail are open to all-terrain vehicleuse.

Those seeking less crowded and pristine areas can escape to the 134 designated wilderness areas man-aged by the BLM covering 5.2 million acres. Additionally, the BLM is currently managing 622 wilderness studyareas that encompass over 17 million acres awaiting Congressional action. Further, the BLM manages the 1.7million acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah.6 The BLM is also responsible for eight

“Presidential, Congressional, and Secretarial designations provide instant visibility to otherwise unknown areas. With visibility, visita-tion is not far behind. The Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument did not exist until the September 1996 monument proclama-tion by President Clinton. The new status has resulted in extensive media coverage heightening the public’s curiosity for visiting thismonument, which is a unique combination of archeological, historical, paleontological, geological, and biological resources.


national conservation areas in Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico. Other congressionaldesignations managed by the BLM include the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area in California, theYaquina Head National Outstanding Natural Area in Oregon, and the one-million-acre White Mountain Na-tional Recreation Area in Alaska.

Although not known as a water resource management agency, the BLM manages 174,000 miles of fish-able streams, 2.6 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, more than 5,400 miles of floatable rivers and 127 boatramps. Under special designation, the BLM manages parts of 34 rivers in five Western states as National Wildand Scenic Rivers. For wildlife enthusiasts, the BLM public lands provide habitat for more than 3,000 speciesof mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. Hunters have access to big game animals, such as pronghorn, mountainsheep, caribou, deer, and moose, as well as numerous waterfowl and small game animals species.

National Trends in Recreation and Tourism on BLM Lands

The BLM, the American Recreation Coalition’s Recreation Roundtable, Tennessee Valley Authority,USDA Forest Service, and the Federal Highway Administration sponsored the 1997 Roper Starch WorldwideNational Survey on “Outdoor Recreation in America.” Key findings from this research reaffirm trends BLMmanagers have been experiencing on the ground about the widespread popularity of outdoor recreation.Cultural tourism has surfaced as a key trend. Families are seeking unique experiences and educational infor-mation. Historic and prehistoric sites are increasingly popular. The BLM public lands hold a tremendouslylarge and varied body of cultural resources. More than 180,000 prehistoric and historic sites have been foundon BLM public lands. This legacy includes ancient stone tools and dwellings, dusty trails, crumbling and half-forgotten cabins, forts, and mines. Enthusiasts can pan for gold near old placer mines, trace an abandonedrailroad line, or photograph petroglyphs that recall stories of ancient triumphs. Two outstanding attractionsare the Garnet Ghost Town in Montana, which preserves 30 buildings much as they were in 1895; and theAnasazi Heritage Center and Museum in Dolores, Colorado, which features the ruins of two late Anasazicommunities and interprets the culture of the people known as the “Ancient Ones.”

Paleontological discoveries are another significant resource found on BLM public lands. For example, inUtah, the BLM’s Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry has yielded nearly 10,000 bones representing at least 14species of Jurassic animals. Material from the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry has been the basis for more publicexhibits than any other dinosaur quarry in the world, contributing specimens to 40 museums in 19 states andeight foreign countries. The challenge for the BLM is to channel the public’s enthusiasm for archaeological,historical, and paleontological resources on the public lands to protect and preserve this fragile and irreplace-able legacy.

Scenic driving and sightseeing are among the most popular forms of outdoor recreation in the U.S. TheBLM developed its Back Country Byway program to complement the National Scenic Byway program. TheBLM manages 64 back country byways covering over 3,000 miles. An example is Colorado’s Alpine Loopwhich links Lake City, Silverton, and Ouray following roads built by miners over 60 years ago. The bywaypasses through old mines, mining camp mill ruins, tram lines, and ghost towns. Another BLM program de-signed to help meet the demand for recreational touring, particularly among seniors, is the establishment ofeight long-term visitor areas in Arizona and California. Designed primarily for winter travelers in recreationalvehicles, visitors may stay for months at a time by purchasing a long-term visitor pass for a nominal fee. Thepermit covers the season from September 15 to April 15. BLM public lands are more accessible to automobiletravelers than many people realize. Approximately 40 percent of BLM lands are located within a day’s drive of16 major urban areas in the West.

The BLM has 300 Watchable Wildlife areas offering adventure for recreationists to observe and learnabout wildlife in their natural habitat. Enthusiasts may see a steelhead struggling upstream to spawn, a per-egrine falcon wheeling high over a canyon, a killer whale breaching in the Pacific, pronghorn bounding acrossthe plains, or the elusive Roosevelt elk hiding in the wooded forest of the Northwest. This program providesthe public with meaningful opportunities to enjoy wildlife resources. Watchable Wildlife is a program signal-ing the BLM’s efforts to balance recreation resources and wildlife habitat considerations.

Another interesting trend, dramatically impacting the BLM, is the emergence of Las Vegas, Nevada asone of America’s most visited destinations. The BLM’s Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA),just 15 minutes by automobile from Las Vegas, offers much-especially scenic beauty and wildlife-to fami-lies seeking a natural experience away from the Las Vegas strip. Red Rock Canyon is also a world-class rockclimbing area. In addition, the BLM public lands are experiencing increasing international visitation. Interna-tional visitation to the United States is a growing market. International travelers are looking for a real ‘tAmeri-can” experience and have a keen interest in adventure travel in the American West. Another management


challenge for the BLM is appropriate signage in several languages to ensure international visitors have a goodquality recreation experience.

BLM Strategic Planni@ and Recreation 2000

Many popular forest areas and parks in the U.S. are overcrowded with decreasing visitor services andcrumbling infrastructure. Visitation to the BLM public lands has increased from 51 million visits in 1994 tonearly 60 million visits in 1997, as more and more people pursue outdoor activities. The growth in recre-ational use has had various impacts and consequences. Some areas are deteriorating from overuse. The veryresources that attract visitors may be in jeopardy. If these resources are impaired or damaged, they will losetheir value and appeal. When visitor use exceeds capacity, it is often a difficult management task to protectresources from degradation, while at the same time ensuring visitor safety. The BLM is expanding its efforts toeducate the public about protecting and conserving its public land heritage through interpretation, environ-mental education, permit stipulations, and environmental stewardship efforts. Visitors are asked to use andenjoy the public lands with minimal environmental impact by incorporating the Leave No Trace and TreadLightly principles.

Leave No Trace principles are techniques that visitors can use to help reduce evidence of their presenceon the public lands. By following the Leave No Trace land ethic, visitors can enjoy public lands, the backcountry, and wilderness areas, while preserving the beauty and solitude of this public land legacy. TreadLightly is an educational program dedicated to increasing awareness about how to enjoy public and privatelands while minimizing impacts. The emphasis is responsible use of off-highway vehicles and other forms ofback country travel, and low-impact principles that are applicable to outdoor recreation activities. The TreadLightly pledge involves traveling only where permitted; respecting the rights of others; educating oneself;avoiding streams, meadows, and wildlife; and driving and traveling responsibly. Well-informed, environmen-tally sensitive recreation users can play a key role in protecting cultural, natural, and scenic resources, as wellas sustaining the health of the nation’s public lands.

While the recreation public continues to increase, funding has not kept pace with the rising costs ofmanaging recreation sites and providing services that the public expects and demands. Consequently, routineand corrective maintenance needs are not being met, BLM recreation employees are not sufficiently presenton site, and critical visitor services are lacking. In 1989, the BLM developed the comprehensive document,Hecreution 2000: A Strutegic Ylun, which outlines specific policy guidance for the BLM’s recreation program.Through the strategic plan, the BLM’s recreation program was recognized as a major component of the BLM’smultiple use mandate. In 1994, the BLM updated its strategic plan and crafted the Recreution 2000 Upchte.These two documents establish a clear image of the BLM in providing quality recreation and tourism opportu-nities for the public while sustaining healthy land and water resources.

Well-designed, universally accessible facilities, combined with sound management techniques, can sta-bilize and restore natural values, increase safety, and improve the recreation experience. This sometimesposes a dilemma for management. Facilities require long-term maintenance and are an added expense. Facili-ties and costly visitor centers represent a break from the BLM’s traditional recreation niche-providing aprimitive and dispersed experience consistent with the wide-open landscapes the BLM manages. Further-more, the BLM should complement, not compete, with other federal, state, tribal, regional, and local govern-ments and private entities that also supply recreation opportunities.

The BLM attempts to customize the management of each local area according to its own unique at-tributes. The BLM focuses on resource-dependent opportunities, as well as responding to the demands forfacility development where necessary. Most recreation-related development involves protecting resource val-ues and serving as staging areas for resource-based use-not as visitor attractions in and of themselves. Throughcollaborative efforts, recreation providers must strive to provide a diversity of opportunities and make themavailable to the public. The BLM is developing a marketing strategy for the next five years on recreation,travel, and tourism to accompany and complement the Recreation 2000 Upclute strategic plan. Each BLMdistrict office must identify its niche and concentrate on furnishing high-quality recreation opportunities incooperation with other providers. For example, BLM’s New Mexico’s Roswell District contains many cavesadjacent to Carlsbad Caverns National Park. In defining one of its primary recreation niches, the districtdecided to concentrate on providing “wild” cave opportunities. Visitors wishing a more structured cave visitare directed to Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Within this region, a broad spectrum of customers is servedby both the BLM and the National Park Service, providing complementary-not competing-opportunities.

The tremendous growth in recreation visitation is having a significant impact on the economy of manyWestern communities. One of the challenges facing the BLM is to help local communities understand, antici-

Outdoor Recreat ion Resources 53

pate, and plan for the economic and social impacts of travel and tourism from the outdoor recreation thatoccurs on BLM public lands. The BLM is now evaluating methods to improve its understanding of customerexpectations, needs, and motivations. This deeper understanding will lead to the improved management ofoutdoor recreation, travel, and tourism opportunities.

The Bureau oj* Lund Munagement’s “Windy Arch” (top) and “Kink Area” (bottom) inAlaska ojJw opportunities for remote recreation experiences. Photos courtesy of theUSDI Bureau of Land Management.

The BLM is currently working with the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, and Old Do-minion University to identify the economic impact of recreation accurately from public lands to neighboringcommunities. Preliminary studies indicate significant positive impacts. An example of this economic impact


is the study results of recreationists visiting Yaquina Head, Oregon. In 1995, almost $21 million was spentlocally by tourists visiting and recreating at Yaquina Head. The rugged beauty of this promontory is one of themost outstanding features of the Oregon coast. It includes a century-old lighthouse, marine gardens, viewingplatform, paved parking areas, and stairway access to the beach and tide pools. The BLM public lands are notonly valued for their revenue-raising potential and economic benefits to rural and local economies, but alsofor the exceptional and challenging recreation opportunities.

The BLM is working to develop innovative approaches for securing additional funding to satisfy thegrowing desire of the recreating public to use public lands. Using existing legal authorities, the BLM is me-thodically implementing a recreation fee program and building partnerships at local, county, regional, state,and national levels to leverage its fiscal resources. Partnerships increase the staffing, equipment, facilities,printing services, maintenance capabilities, and funding available to improve the quality of services and levelof maintenance provided at many outdoor recreation sites.

The BLM is aggressively pursuing challenge cost-share partnerships, grants, and alternative fundingsources to strengthen its relationship with local communities and to provide high-quality customer service topublic land users. Selection of cost-share partners is focused on recreation site management that reduces riskto public health and safety, decreases environmental degradation, provides recreation facilities that meet userequirements, improves the quality and diversity of the resources, and provides customer service that is the“best in the business.” Also important is the delivery of messages to the public on environmental stewardshipethics about conserving and protecting its treasured public lands legacy.

Public lands are administered by the BLM for the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans. The publiclands were once considered the “lands nobody wanted.” Today, they are recognized for their rich legacy-both a link with the past and a trail to the future.

Resource Protection and Public Use

The National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are agencies of theDepartment of the Interior that, by law, emphasize resource protection. Both have major land holdings through-out the United States, especially in Alaska. The NPS is much better known by the American public and has farmore annual visitation. The NPS’ higher profile may be because recreation or “public enjoyment” is an ex-plicit part of the NPS mission. The NPS, however, seems to fight a continuing battle over the proper balance ofpreservation versus public use (Satchel& 1997b). The enormous popularity of the national parks results inongoing problems of crowding and its associated impacts. Crowding is not a widespread problem on FWSresources, but the issue of “appropriate use” on national wildlife refuges has received a great deal of attention.The FWS recognizes recreation as a “legitimate use,” allowable so long as it does not conflict with conserva-tion objectives.

National Park ServiceThe NPS is arguably the best-known federal land-managing agency due to its famous “crown jewel”

national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon. Almost two-thirds of NPS land is inAlaska. Including Alaska, the two Western regions account for 91 percent of NPS resources (Table 111.1).Without Alaska, the Eastern portion of NPS land rises from nine to 26 percent. The other 49 states have about28.5 million acres of NPS land, with approximately 7.3 million acres in the North and South regions com-bined. As important as the size of NPS resources is their variety. In 1996, there were 374 separate NPS units,including national parks, monuments, historic sites, battlefields, parkways, recreation areas, seashores, andothers. Although the larger areas are mostly in the West, the diverse NPS units are well distributed throughoutthe contiguous states.

The NPS is also responsible for several “affiliated areas,” which are not technically NPS units but aremanaged with NPS assistance. Chimney Rock National Historic Site in Nebraska and the Historic CamdenDistrict in South Carolina are two examples of NPS affiliated areas. The NPS has a presence in several of thenation’s urban areas with National Historic Sites and National Recreation Areas (NRAs). Nearly all of theNRAs are primarily water-based resources; the Gateway NRA in New York, the Chattahoochee River NRA inAtlanta, and the Golden Gate NRA in San Francisco are three well-known and highly popular urban sitesmanaged by the NPS.

In addition to the natural and cultural interpretation that visitors enjoy at NPS units, many of them,especially national parks, host a variety of traditional outdoor recreational uses. The NPSMap and Guide liststhe following facilities, services, and activities at each of the units: visitor centers, guides for hire, camp-grounds, boat ramps, cabin rentals, access for disabled persons, back country permits, and areas for mountain


climbing, horseback riding, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, bicycling, snowmobiling, and cross-countryskiing.

Two recent laws passed by Congress had major implications for NPS resources. First and foremost, theCalifornia Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P L. 103-433) protected more land in the lower 48 states than anyother legislation with the exception of the 1964 Wilderness Act, most of it under NPS’ jurisdiction (Zinser,1995). Death Valley National Monument was upgraded to national park status after 1.3 million acres of BLMland were transferred to the NPS. More BLM land was transferred to the NPS near the Joshua Tree NationalMonument, which was also upgraded to a national park. Further, a new NPS unit, the Mohave National Pre-serve, was created from 1.4 million acres of the former BLM East Mohave Scenic Area. In addition to numer-ous minor provisions, the act also established a number of new wilderness areas and wilderness study areas inthe NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS.

Another significant law passed by Congress was the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Actof 1996 (H.R. 4236). It created five new NPS units: the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve and NicodemusNational Historic Site (NHS) in Kansas, the Washita Battlefield NHS in Oklahoma, and the New Bedford Whal-ing National Historic Park and the Boston Harbor Islands NRA in Massachusetts. The Tallgrass Prairie Na-tional Preserve is the first of its kind in the United States. The act also defined a management structure for thePresidio, the former military installation on a spectacular setting in San Francisco, which WW recently trans-ferred to the NPS. Further, the Omnibus Act provided funding toward the protection of the highly regardedSterling Forest natural area, located just 40 miles from New York City along the New Jersey border. And theact also created nine “heritage areas,” a new NPS designation that is not technically an NPS unit, but thatprovides technical assistance to historic and cultural districts created through local initiatives.

The National Park Service and Outdoor Recreation in the United States

(By Merle Van Horne, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.)

The mission of the National Park Service, as stated in its 1997 strategic plan, is:

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of theNational Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. TheService cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservationand outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.

The two elements of this mission statement-the park system and the cooperative outreach effort-while entirely complementary, are sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.

The National Park Svstem

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created a new federal bureau within the Department ofthe Interior to protect and manage the 40 national parks and monuments then in existence and those yet tobe established (USDI-NPS, 1995, p.6). Since then, the system has grown to more than 370 such “units”designated Congress and in some cases (by the president) designates new areas. The service is responsible forthe protection of resources as varied as the White House (18 acres) and the Wrangell-St. Elias National Parkand Preserve (13 million acres), as well as more than 35 million museum objects and 22,000 linear feet ofarchives. Table III.3 summarizes the status of the National Park System as of December 31, 1996.

A number of trends are affecting the National Park System and will continue to do so. They all posechallenges to the adaptability of the service.

Congress continues to create new units for the National Park Service to manage, often with little or noincrease in dollars or personnel to do the job. The growing gap between means and ends is leading to majoradaptations, some tentative and experimental, in how the National Park Service does its work. Here are a fewexamples:

Entrance and service fees are always controversial, but surveys have consistently shown that visitorswould accept higher fees if they were sure the revenue would go for improved facilities and services atthe site where the money was collected. Both Congress and past administrations have been most reluc-

I


tam to relinquish any of their control over where the money goes, but these kinds of fee “plowback”experiments are now being conducted with congressional approval.

. Partnering with both commercial and nonprofit organizations is seen as a path to more cost-effectivemanagement of the National Park System. This has always been so. More than 650 concessionairesprovide lodging, transportation, food, shops, and recreational services to park visitors (USDI-NPS, 1997,p. xi). Numerous “cooperating associations” serve the visitor with literature and information. Consider-ation is being given to using partners in more-and more responsible-roles. A current study is explor-ing the possible role of bond issuance in funding major capital projects. Also, the National Park Servicehas traditionally benefitted from the services of many fine volunteers. They are even more avidly soughtin the present climate of fiscal constraint.

. A worrisome trend in recent years is a rise in the number and severity of “external threats” to parkresources from adverse changes in the use of nearby (and not so nearby) lands in other ownerships.This trend has led to much strife between parks and their neighbors, both public and private. Efforts arenow underway to mitigate these conflicts and establish more cooperative relationships with park neigh-bors. Often, “ecosystem management” is seen as an appropriate framework for improved relationshipsof this type.

Table 111.3: The National Park System” as of December 31, 1996

NumberType of Area in System Acreage

International Historic Site 1 35National Battlefield 1 1 13,144National Battlefield Park 3 8,776National Battlefield Site 1 1National Historic Site 74 23,913National Historical Park 38 162,239National Lakeshore 4 228,936National Memorial 26 8,058National Military Park 9 38,028National Monument 73 2,066,178National Park 54 51,700,937National Parkway 4 170,765National Preserve 16 23,616,704National Recreation Area 19 3,703,211National Reserve 2 33,407National Riverb 6 424,786National Scenic Trail 3 183,105National Seashore 10 592,608National Wild and Scenic RiverC 9 219,540Other Areasd 1 1 38,947

System Totals 374 83,233,318

IDoes not include National Park Service-affiliated areas nor national heritage areas and corridors, sincethose resources have not been designated as units of the National Park System.bThese six rivers are designated and managed as units of the National Park System, but they have not beendesignated as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.cThese nine rivers are designated and managed as units of the National Park System, und in addition, havebeen designated as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Certain other rivers, whichare components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, are managed by the National Park Servicebut are not units of the National Park System. Those rivers are not included in this table, which is limited toNational Park System units.dIncludes the White House, the National Mall, and various other sites.


The VisitorsThere are many. Over the lo-year period of 1987-1996, recreation visits to the National Park System

ranged between 246 million and 275 million, with a long-term increasing tendency. Over the same period,overnight stays held fairly steady between 16.6 million and 18.3 million, with tent and back country campinggaining and recreation vehicle camping declining (USDI-NPS, 1987-1996).

The National Park Service encourages “appreciative” recreation activities, such as hiking and wildlifeobservation, which have relatively little adverse impact on resources and generally do not impair the qualityof other people’s experiences. Some sensitive natural and cultural areas are restricted to such activities exclu-sively. The National Park System includes some urban parks and national recreation areas which permit abroader range of recreation pursuits. Even in such areas, however, the service has been relatively successful(with the support of the majority of visitors) in avoiding clearly inappropriate recreation activities.

In recent years, much of the media coverage of the national parks has consisted of horror stories ofgross overcrowding. In actuality, such episodes are mostly limited to peak weekends at the most popularparks. The service takes the crowding problem seriously, however, since these crush-load instances may beharbingers of things to come. Various remedies are being tested and applied.

Reservations are required more often and at more places. Alternative transportation systems are re-placing the space-consuming private automobile in the most crowded front country areas. New informationtechnologies are being used to divert people from the most crowded sites and times to equally rewardingalternative destinations.

Off-season visitation is increasing, but the inflexibility of the school year continues to force most familyrecreation travel into major seasonal peaks.

Visitors to the National Park System as a whole are quite diverse. However, those who travel outsidemetropolitan regions to visit the more remote sites continue to be disproportionately white and of aboveaverage education and income. Tourists from other countries constitute a substantial and increasing share ofnational park visitors. This trend is a major plus. International travel is one of the few segments of our country’sbalanceof payments that consistently shows a surplus. Market studies show that the national parks are one ofAmerica’s best inducements for foreign travelers to visit our shores.

PartnershiDs-The Outreach Effort

Since the 193Os, the National Park Service has had broad authority to extend its expertise and supportto communities throughout the nation, regardless of their proximity to units of the National Park System. Theservice experienced a major expansion of its outreach mandate in 1981, when it assumed most of the recre-ation and cultural resources assistance and monitoring responsibilities formerly exercised by the HeritageConservation and Recreation Service and its predecessor, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation pursuant to theOutdoor Recreation Act of 1963.

The service collaborates with other federal agencies, tribes, states, local, and county governments,nonprofit organizations and commercial enterprises in carrying out this work. Descriptions of some of themajor outreach programs follow.

Through the national historic and natural landmarks programs, Historic Preservation Fund grants, thetribal historic preservation program, the archeology and ethnography program, and the historic Americanbuildings survey/historic American engineering record, the National Park Service bolsters community preser-vation efforts nationwide. In partnership with the State Historic Preservation Officers, more than 67,000resources have been listed on the national register of historic places. The preservation tax credit programalone has leveraged more than 817 billion in private investment, restoring over 26,000 historic buildings.Over the next five years, an increase of 15 to 20 percent in the number of resources protected by thesepartnership programs is envisaged.

Since 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided more than $3.2 billion in 50 percentmatching grants to states and territories for the acquisition and development of recreation and conservationsites. The 37,000 parks and recreation facilities assisted through this program and the 1,800 properties reha-bilitated with grants from the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program are largely administered bycounties and municipalities. Most of them serve community recreation and open-space needs.


Similarly, the Federal Lands-to-Parks program has recycled over 1,200 “surplus” federal properties intolocally managed parks, open space and recreational facilities. Over the past 10 years, the Rivers, Trails andConservation Assistance program has responded to over 500 requests for help with locally developed conser-vation and recreation projects by providing technical assistance. Over the next five years, these two partner-ship programs plan to assist in the conservation of 1,100 additional miles of trail, 1,200 miles of protectedriver corridor, and 35,000 acres of new parks and open space-largely at the community level (USDI-NPS,1997, p. 43).

Other recreation resources and opportunities are conserved through partnerships with states and otherfederal agencies. In cooperation with other land managing agencies, the National Park Service exercises theSecretary of the Interior’s oversight responsibility for the National System of Trails and the National System ofWild and Scenic Rivers. More than 150 wild and scenic river segments conserve key free-flowing waterways.Twenty national scenic and historic trails and over 800 national recreation trails mark and commemoratemany famous pathways and travel routes.

In the Urban Resources Partnership, the National Park Service cooperates with six other federal agen-cies to focus various assistance programs on the environmental problems of 13 American cities. The programresponds to community-defined needs with projects ranging from erosion control, to community gardens, toanti-litter campaigns.

Recently, Congress has begun to designate national heritage areas-locally-driven partnerships thatprotect resources and provide educational and recreational opportunities. Fifteen such areas have been des-ignated so far. Each national heritage area recognizes an exemplary local or regional effort to conserve andinterpret a distinctive “cultural landscape” that has evolved over time through the interaction between theland and the human communities thereon. Management of these areas is entirely local, but the managemententities are eligible for targeted technical assistance from applicable National Park Service programs.

America is changing rapidly. Each succeeding generation of National Park Service managers and em-ployees faces new problems and opportunities arising from a changed environment and a different clientele.Constant and thoughtful adaptation is the key to success in accomplishing the service’s dual mission of re-source preservation and effective service to the American people.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe purpose of the FWS is to protect and enhance wildlife and fish habitats in the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Most refuges were established for migratory bird conservation and endangered species protec-tion. The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 established the refuge system with the standardthat any public uses must be “compatible” with the management of the individual refuges. The 1966 law,however, did not define a unifying mission for the agency. The National Wildlife Refuge System ImprovementAct, passed by the House of Representatives in 1997 but still awaiting Senate action, defined a mission for theFish and Wildlife Service and established priority public uses. A key provision is the recognition of wildlife-dependent recreation as a “legitimate and appropriate” public use, so long as it is compatible with wildlifeconservation.

As of September 1997, there were 512 refuges with approximately 90 million acres in the United States,not counting U.S. territories. In addition, the FWS manages about 2.5 million acres of waterfowl productionareas. These areas consist of wetlands management districts (WMD) managed as part of the National WildlifeRefuge System. WMDs are located in the upper Great Plains and Great Lakes states (plus Iowa and Montana).Many provide recreation opportunities similar to those found on National Wildlife Refuges.

FWS’s “Visitor’s Guide” map and brochure describes recreation facilities and services available at allrefuges and WMDs that allow public use. These facilities and services include: visitor centers, walk-in-onlyand day-use-only areas, hiking trails, wildlife viewing sites and best seasons for viewing wildlife, archaeologi-cal sites, wilderness areas, allowable use of nonmotorized and motorized boating, and the availability of hunt-ing and fishing. More than one-third of the refuges (176), about 23.6 million acres, are not open for outdoorrecreation. Most FWS land is in Alaska. Of the refuge acres closed to public use, almost 9.5 percent are in threerefuges in Alaska. Excluding Alaska, the majority of FWS land in the contiguous states is in the Rocky Moun-tain region (53 percent), followed by the South with 28 percent (Table 111.1).


Outdoor Recreation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlaye Service

(By Terry Villanueva, Recreation Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the principal federal agency with responsibility for conserv-ing, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the Americanpeople. The FWS manages 512 National Wildlife Refuges covering about 90 million acres in all 50 states andU.S. territories, as well as 64 National Fish Hatcheries. The agency also enforces federal wildlife laws, managesmigratory bird populations, stocks recreational fisheries, and conserves and restores wildlife habitat such aswetlands. In addition, it oversees the Federal Aid program that directs federal excise taxes on angling andhunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. This program is a cornerstone of the nation’s wildlife manage-ment efforts, funding fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, shooting ranges, andrelated projects across the U.S.

In great American tradition, the hunting and angling community likewise has become a cornerstone ofconservation. Whether in the form of a local Izaak Walton League or Bass Angler Sportsman Society Chapter,fighting to preserve water quality in local lakes and rivers or an effort to conserve wetlands sponsored by aDucks Unlimited Chapter, these small partnerships have become hugely important parts of national conserva-tion efforts. Keeping hunting and fishing as healthy, vibrant recreational activities is, therefore, important tothe future of wildlife conservation. And newer forms of wildlife recreation, like photography, observation andconservation education are presenting new ways for Americans to get involved in conservation.

Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge &stem

The debate over how National Wildlife Refuge lands, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,ought to be managed and used by the public has intensified and become more visible over the last two decadesas the-system expanded and visitation grew to nearly 30 million people per year. The first national wildliferefuge was established in 1903, when President Teddy Roosevelt set aside a tiny Florida island as a protectedarea for birds being indiscriminately harvested for their plumage to meet the fashion demands of the day.Today, the National Wildlife Refuge System forms a network of diverse landscapes wildlife call home, provid-ing habitats where migratory birds thrive and endangered species mark their recovery.

To help balance the refuge system’s central wildlife conservation mission with legitimate public recre-ation interests, on March 25, 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12996, Management and Gen-eral Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the first major presidential action to clearly define themission, purpose and priority public uses of the system. The Executive Order defined the mission of thesystem as preserving “a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of thefish, wildlife, and plants of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations.” The Adminis-tration opposed subsequent attempts by Congress to elevate recreational use to a “purpose” of the refugesystem. In a display of bipartisan cooperation, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt joined CongressmenDon Young (R-AK), John Dingell (D-MI), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), and George Miller (D-CA), and representatives ofthe National Audubon Society, Wildlife Management Institute, International Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies, and Wildlife Legislative Fund of America to develop alternative legislation. The negotiations re-sulted in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, PL. 105-57, which was signed into law byPresident Clinton on October 9, 1997.

Many provisions of P.L. 105-57 coincide with those found in Executive Order 12996. Key legislativeprovisions mirroring the Executive Order include the Refuge System mission statement, definition of prioritypublic uses, and a requirement that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the RefugeSystem be maintained. Citing the Executive Order’s provision on priority public uses as the foundation for thedirection set in the bill, the legislation defines compatible wildlife-dependent recreation as “a legitimate andappropriate general public use of the [Refuge] System.” It establishes certain wildlife-dependent public usesas priority public uses, to receive enhanced consideration over others. These uses are defined as hunting,fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The legisla-tion states that these uses should be facilitated when compatible but does not mandate these activities. Theseuses also were defined as priority public uses in Executive Order 12996.

The Improvement Act retains refuge managers’ authority to use their best professional judgment todetermine compatible public uses and whether or not they will be permitted. “Compatible use” is defined asone that “will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the [Refuge]System or the purposes of a refuge.” This language retains the current regulatory definition of “compatibleuse” used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The new legislation includes provisions requiring that all new


public uses and any renewal of existing uses comply with a public involvement process spelled out in the bill.It also requires public involvement in the development of refuge management plans. The plans must identifythe purposes of each refuge, data on wildlife populations, archaeological and cultural values, suitable visitorfacilities, any problems that affect wildlife and actions to remedy them, and opportunities for compatiblewildlife-dependent recreation.

The only legislation defining the Refuge System prior to P.L. 105.57 came in 1966, with passage of theNational Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which the law amends. This law provided that all of theindividual refuges become the National Wildlife Kefuge System and established a “compatibility standard” forpermitting public uses of individual refuges. However, the 1966 law lacked a unifying purpose or mission forthe Kefuge System and a specific process by which compatibility determinations should be made. The Na-tional Wildlife Kefuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is designed to address these issues and, for the firsttime in its history, provides the Refuge System with an organic act to govern its management and use into thenext century.

ExuandinP the Potential for Partnerships

Providing increased opportunities for wildlife-related recreation on FWS lands in an era of limited bud-gets requires the agency to work more effectively and efficiently with its non-government partners. A majorthrust for the FWS over the coming decade will be to increase the number of partnerships with outsideorganizations working to reach common conservation goals. As part of its initial efforts to implement Presi-dent Clinton’s executive order on wildlife refuges, the FWS set out to increase the participation of refuge“Friends” groups in providing visitor’s services- ranging from environmental education and interpretation toguided tours-on refuge lands. CARE, a coalition of conservation and recreation groups, is also working to-gether with Congress to ensure that the refuge system receives the funding it needs to meet operational needs.

Prior to his Executive Order on refuge management, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12962on Recreational Fisheries. The executive order required federal agencies to work together to improve recre-ational fisheries under their existing responsibilities and programs. To guide agencies in improving fishingopportunities, the executive order required agencies to develop a joint comprehensive fisheries conservationplan. To ensure that the plans are implemented and monitored, President Clinton assigned the Sport Fishingand Boating Partnership Council to annually review the progress of each agency represented in the plan.

The Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, made up of representatives of state natural re-source agencies and the fishing and boating industries and their trade associations, was formed three yearsago to provide guidance and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on government policies affect-ing recreational boating and fishing. In addition to input from the council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas organized a series of fisheries stakeholder’s meetings throughout the nation. These meetings broughttogether representatives of state, federal and Tribal natural resources agencies; conservation groups; recre-ational industry representatives and anglers to explore how non-federal and federal organizations can worktogether more effectively for the benefit of fisheries resources. These initiatives, and related efforts, will playan increasing role in meeting and responding to evolving demands for wildlife-related recreation on FWSlands as the National Wildlife Refuge System moves toward the celebration of its first century in 2003.

Other Federal Land Resources

Two other important federal sources of recreation land are not primarily land managing agencies. Theseare the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and Indian tribal land, administered in part by the Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA). Both limit public access, and neither is guided by a systematic recreation policy. Each Indianreservation and Defense Department installation is a separate and unique case, thus recreation access andavailability varies. Indian land is not federally owned, but is administered with assistance from the federalgovernment.

Indian Land

(By Gary L. Rankel, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.)

The United States contains approximately 56 million acres of Indian land, an area about the size ofGeorgia and South Carolina combined. The great majority of this land is on reservations in the Southwest,


Great Plains, and Mountain states. It includes more than 500 federally recognized tribes, most located in thestates of Alaska, California, and Oklahoma. Land ownership within reservations ranges from 100 percenttribal to a complex “checkerboarded” pattern involving numerous tribal, individual Indian, and non-Indianowners. Unlike state and federal land management agencies, tribal governments have no mission or charge toprovide outdoor recreation or other public use opportunities on Indian land. This land is for exclusive Indianuse pursuant to treaties, statutes, and executive orders. As sovereign governments, tribes have the power tomake laws, administer justice, manage use, and regulate member and non-member activity on Indian land.

Tribal fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation operations are funded through the BIA’s Fish, Wildlife, andRecreation program. The goal of this program is to fulfill and execute the federal government’s trust and rightsprotection responsibilities relating to fish, wildlife, and recreation resources for the sustenance, cultural en-richment, and economic support of Indians. This goal is carried out through the Indian Self-DeterminationAct of 1975, which permits tribes to contract with the bureau to carry out programs that would otherwise beperformed by federal personnel. More than 95 percent of program resources are contracted to tribes.

Recognizing the potential of their resource bases, many tribal governments have pursued outdoor rec-reation and tourism as an economic development strategy, establishing programs that account for millions ofpublic-use days annually. Indian pow-wows, fiestas, fairs, and religious ceremonies draw additional millions ofvisitors, including many from foreign countries. Indian museums, cultural centers, heritage displays, and artsand crafts shops are also popular attractions. In recent years, Indian casinos, bingo halls and other gamingestablishments have begun to receive heavy use, boosting many Indian and local economies.

Recreational fishery potentials exist on more than 100 reservations in 23 states containing approxi-mately 750,000 acres of lakes and impoundments, and 10,000 miles of rivers and streams.’ Of more than 80recreational fisheries programs conducted on Indian reservations, several are nationally renowned, such asthe Cherokee, NC; Leech Lake, MN; and Wind River, WY tribes. Tribal hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest, theGreat Lakes states, and other regions create diverse fishing opportunities for a variety of species. Indianreservations offer a host of hunting opportunities and support several tribal programs that are popular fortheir guided and package hunts featuring elk, bighorn sheep, and other big game. Numerous other tribes offerdiverse hunting experiences for bear, javelina, mountain lion, waterfowl, upland birds, and other species. Anumber of tribes have set aside portions of their reservations as hunting preserves, wildlife refuges, wildlifeviewing areas, and wilderness areas. Recently, more than 30 tribes throughout the Plains states created theIntertribal Bison Cooperative to reestablish bison herds for subsistence, cultural, religious, and tourism-re-lated purposes.

Other recreation facilities and opportunities on Indian land include day-use areas, full-convenience RVparks and campgrounds, boating facilities, and water sports activities including whitewater rafting and house-boat rentals. Hiking, horseback riding, biking, off-road motoring, winter sports, spectator sports, and otherleisure pursuits are also available.

An especially popular Indian tourism area is the Four Corners region of the Southwest. This area offersnumerous major tourist attractions and includes spectacular desert scenery, cliff dwellings, and unique In-dian cultural events and religious ceremonies. Alaska Indian tribes-including Eskimos, Aleuts, Athabascans,and others-offer a variety of tourism attractions and services. Other prosperous Indian tourism centers arelocated throughout Oklahoma and on the eastern band of Cherokee Indians Reservation, which borders theGreat Smoky Mountains National Park. Others heavily involved in tourism include the Miccosukee tribe ofFlorida, the Alabama-Coushatta tribes of Texas, the Flathead and Blackfeet reservations of Montana, and thePenobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes of Maine.

Several tribes maintain tourism offices and visitor centers, and many have produced colorful brochures,maps, and information packages describing attractions, opportunities, and programs on their reservations.Many reservations are posted to facilitate visitor use, and some tribes offer guided tours of reservation land-marks and attractions. Not all tribes promote tourism and public use of reservation resources, however. Ofthose that do, many prohibit public use of certain land. Some tribes prohibit photography and many Indianpeople prefer not being photographed. Attendance at religious ceremonies may be off-limits or by invitationonly.

‘The BIA does not have an up-to-date brochure or directory which lists recreational opportunities available to the general public onIndian land. The most current centralized information is in a 1991 BIA report titled “Outdoor Recreation on Indian Lands: Opportuni-ties and Contacts.” It lists each tribe/reservation and office to contact for more information. The brief information provided listswhether public use is allowed for the eight recreational activities-fishing, hunting, camping, bicycling, boating, hiking, snowmpbiling,and auto touring-that were part of the Bush Administration’s Enjoy Outcloors America initiative in the early 1990s. Zinser (1995)recommends the guidebook, Discower Indian Reseruations USA by Veronica E. Tiller (Council Publications, 1992, Denver CO), as asource of information on recreational attractions and services on individual reservations.


The proximity of Indian reservations to many national parks and other landmarks and attractions, andthe compatibility of low-impact cultural, historic, and ecosystem-based tourism with traditional tribal valuesand goals make these lands potentially important recreation resources. Implementation of tourism programsfor Indian lands will require training of willing tribes in the areas of tourism and concessions management,promotion and marketing, visitor services, facilities management, infrastructure development, and similarrelated fields. Cooperative efforts involving tribes, other governments, and the private sector could facilitatethe development of regional tourism packages,

Department of Defense Land

(By George H. Siehl, Congressional Research Service (retired), Gaithersburg, MD)

The Department of Defense (DOD) is seldom associated with outdoor recreation or natural resources.With about 25 million acres under management throughout the United States, however, DOD ranks as the fifthlargest federal property owner. While recreation is not a part of the DOD military mission, that much landcannot be ignored in an assessment of outdoor recreation resources.

Military reservations have long provided for the recreation needs of military personnel and their fami-lies and, to a more limited extent, to nonmilitary visitors. Large bases contain playgrounds, playing fields orcourts, marinas, golf courses, and extensive open space suitable for biking, hiking, hunting, fishing, or wildlifeobservation. In short, military bases provide the same kinds of outdoor recreation opportunities that manyother communities provide for local residents. For many years, military bases were treated as self-containedcommunities for a variety of reasons. With the advent of the all-volunteer force, the military increasingly hasbecome family-centered. With these changes, some barriers to interaction with neighboring communitieshave lessened. More base commanders now welcome area residents to visit and enjoy military land, subject toany constraints caused by their mission.

TheArmy, in particular, has a long history of protecting natural resources. It administered the battle-field parks of the American Civil War from their founding in the final third of the last century through the1930s when management was shifted to the National Park Service. The Army cavalrymen and engineers werethe first national park rangers. They were sent to protect early parks prior to establishment of the NationalPark Service in 1916. In this capacity, they designed and built roads and structures in Yellowstone NationalPark that remain in service to this day. The Army also administered the 1930s Civilian Conservation Corpscamps, whose occupants built many recreation improvements in national parks and forests.

The U.S. Coast Guard, in the Department of Transportation, becomes a military organization in war-time. On a daily basis, however, the Coast Guard is a recreation facilitator. It oversees recreational boating,enforces safety laws, and helps educate boaters. Thus, the military, which at first glance seems to bear littlerelationship to outdoor recreation, is an important player.

The DOD is in the midst of a massive downsizing that began late in the Reagan administration, acceler-ated after the Gulf War, and continues in the Clinton years. This decade-long process has shed manpower,ships, planes, vehicles, and hundreds of bases. Within this overall restructuring, recreation is affected mostdirectly by DOD land requirements. In 1988, 1991 to 1993, and 1995, legislation required the DOD to reviewits needs for bases as the number of troops decreased and to dispose of excess real property. Base closureshave benefitted outdoor recreation because some land was transferred to federal, state, and local govern-ments specifically for recreation, conservation, or open-space uses.

The Federal Lands to Parks program, administered by the National Park Service, helped 91 local andstate agencies acquire approximately 5,700 acres of transferred properties for park land in the decade 1986 to1996? Since military base decommissioning began in 1988, the NPS has identified 65 bases with land andfacilities appropriate for potential transfer to recreation agencies. As of mid-1996, six of these bases hadtransferred over 1,000 acres, and an additional 12,000 acres from the remaining bases were pending transferapproval to more than 70 local and state recreation agencies (USDI-NPS, 1996a). In other cases, where de-commissioned military land was not transferred directly to recreation and park agencies, recreation wasincluded in a mix of land uses in the base re-use plans which were developed in conjunction with localgovernments and the private sector.

RAuthorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the Federal Lands to Parks Program has transferred over1,200 surplus Federal properties totaling more than 142,000 acres to State and local recreation and park agencies since 1949. Theproperties range from parcels of less than an acre to the 7,000 acre Croft State Park in South Carolina (Kelly, Cornelssen, and Bailey1996).


Many of the developed recreation facilities on bases are funded through the DOD Morale, Welfare, andRecreation (MWR) program, which is financed not from tax dollars, but from profits from the military com-missaries and military user fees for recreation equipment or facilities. Possible limitations on what commis-saries can sell could eventually curtail funds available for development and maintenance of recreation oppor-tunities on military land.

A DOD funding source with natural resource significance has been reduced. The Legacy ResourcesManagement program was established by Congress in the 1991 DOD Appropriation Act. That program firstreceived $10 million per year and later $25 million. Funding for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was 83 million and$10 million, respectively. The money was made available to bases on a competitive basis to inventory, protect,and manage biological, cultural, and geophysical resources on DOD land. Although recreation was not in-cluded as a program goal, the improvement of resource management provided indirect benefits to wildlifeactivities such as observation or hunting. Other conservation funds have been integrated with the serviceoperational programs. In the Army, for instance, resource conservation is now incorporated in the IntegratedTraining Area Management (ITAM) program. Specific projects under this arrangement tie closely to support-ing training and readiness requirements for the Army. Activities include restoration of vegetative cover ontank training ranges.

Looking ahead, recreation interests and initiatives on DOD land will be at the margin, for the most part.Marketing of recreation on military land is likely to come through individual efforts by base commanders to bebetter neighbors with surrounding communities. Dedication of land on closed bases to recreation and open-space uses is the most likely means of benefiting broad,recreation interests in the years ahead. Nonetheless,land remaining under DOD management will be an important reservoir of open space and habitat for wildlife.Already, this land shelters over 400 endangered or candidate species. Continued emphasis on stewardship byDOD is essential to enhancing resource values, but pressures to spend available funds to benefit militaryreadiness will persist.

Since World War II, military technology has contributed much to outdoor recreation. Perhaps the bestexample of this technology transfer is the rubber life raft. Other outdoor recreation adaptations from militarytechnology and equipment include four-wheel drive vehicles, camouflaged clothing, and more recently, nightvision and global positioning devices. Additional ideas will be borrowed and adapted from the military in theyears ahead. Similarly, DOD will pick up on improvements in recreation gear. In addition, many bases containmuseums or outdoor displays of historic equipment that draw visitors. Also, ceremonies, parades, and demon-strations such as many bases provided on Armed Forces Day bring crowds interested in history, heritage, andpatriotism.

The Federal Water Resource Agencies

The remaining three federal land-managing agencies that provide outdoor recreation ppportunities inthe United States are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE), the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) in the Depart-ment of the Interior, and the independent Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). A fourth agency, the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce, plays an important indi-rect role with respect to coastal and marine recreation. The CE, BoR, and TVA each manage federal waterresource projects primarily for navigation, flood control, and water supply, but also for outdoor recreation asa secondary responsibility.

Another characteristic common to the CE, BoR, and TVA is that their ratio of developed land-with itsinfrastructure and facilities-to dispersed land is much larger than the ratios for the FS, NPS, BLM, and FWS.The three water resource agencies do not manage vast tracts of land as the other agencies do. Consequently,their recreation management programs are heavily oriented toward developed facilities, especially those as-sociated with reservoirs.

A third distinguishing trait of these three agencies is the proximity of their areas to population centers.Many reservoirs are on watercourses near cities. Even BoR, a strictly Western agency, has many recreationareas near urban centers such as Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, and cities of California’sCentral Valley. Over 80 percent of the CE water resource projects are within 50 miles of a metropolitan area,and 40 percent are within 50 miles of two metropolitan statistical areas. The TVA is a regional agency, servingparts of seven Southeastern states. The Tennessee River system extends from western North Carolina andeastern Tennessee west into Mississippi and then northward to Kentucky. The metropolitan areas of Asheville,Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Birmingham, Atlanta, and Memphis are all close to TVA’s waterresources.


Bureau of ReclamationBoR administers 310 recreation areas spread throughout 17 Western states. Overall, BoR land and

water cover about 6.5 million acres (Table 111.1). Just 11 recreation areas covering about 200,000 acres areoutside of the two Western regions. Almost 85 percent of BoR resources are located in the Rocky Mountainregion. BoR differs from the other federal agencies in that it does not manage much of its property. Rather,recreation management is often contracted to other federal agencies, state natural resource agencies, andlocal governments. Only about 14 percent of BoR recreation areas are managed by BoR.

Since BoR was established under the Reclamation Act of 1902, it has been known primarily for develop-ing and managing large-scale agricultural water resource projects. The emphasis on reservoir constructionhas declined in recent years. Instead, BoR is now concentrating on balanced management of its existingproperties for a variety of values. An indication of the importance of recreation in management comes fromthe 1994 decision to emphasize amenity resource values such as wildlife and recreation at Arizona’s GlenCanyon Dam (Zinser, 1995). More details on the trends and issues involved in the BoR’s role as an outdoorrecreation provider are in the accompanying article, “Outdoor Recreation Trends in the Bureau of Reclama-tion.”

Outdoor Recreation Trends in the Bureau of Reclamation

(By Richard A. Crysdale, Senior Outdoor Recreation Planner [retired], U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO)

One role of the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) in the U. S. Department of the Interior is providing recre-ation opportunities in outdoor water settings. The development of its water-based areas are facilitated bylegislation which encourages non-federal recreation management of the recreation sites and allows BoR tocost-share the development of facilities. In many cases, recreation development legislation is specific to agiven project. The management of these resources is primarily by other federal and non-federal public enti-ties.

Since 1902, BoR has developed water primarily for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelec-tric power, and flood control in the 17 western states. In 1965, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (PL89-72) recognized fish and wildlife and recreation as purposes for developing water. This meant fish andwildlife and recreation could be included in the analysis for a benefit-cost ratio to determine the feasibility ofdeveloping water projects.

Today, BoR has 310 designated recreation areas managed by various federal, state and local publicagencies. BoR manages just 48 of these recreation areas which were never transferred to other agencies orwere transferred but returned. Water storage developments like reservoirs provide 4.9 million acres of land,1.7 million surface acres of water, and 13,000 miles of shoreline for recreation. There are over 16,000 miles ofwater conveyance canals and other facilities, some of which provide fishing, hunting and trail use opportuni-ties.

Visitation at the designated recreation areas reached an estimated 87 million in 1996. BoR and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, which develops water primarily for flood control and navigation, administer justtwo percent of the total federal estate. Nearly one-third of the total visitation to the federal estate occurs onBoR and Corps water developments. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service manage nine NationalRecreation Areas (NRA) on BoR water developments. Tourists from other countries are attracted to theseNRAs. Lake Mead NRA in Nevada, for example, has 11 million visitors annually of which an estimated tenpercent arc from other countries. Over one million visitors tour Hoover Dam every year. Since 1981, visita-tion to BoR water developments has increased an average of 1.2 million visitors per year.

Since 1987, more people live west of the Mississippi River than east of it. The western states are domi-nated by arid and semiarid areas, and a rapidly growing urban population concentrated along the west coast,Las Vegas, Phoenix and along the Rocky Mountain Front Range of New Mexico and Colorado. The mountainsare a natural reservoir for storing precipitation during the winter. The spring thaw of snow brings about arapid runoff of water. The urban and rural populations are heavily dependent upon water developments tocapture the runoff and supplement it with ground water development to meet their agricultural, municipal-industrial, and hydroelectric power needs throughout the rest of the year.


Water Conservation and Outdoor Recreation

Conservation of water is a major trend driven primarily by various laws passed by Congress. Threemajor forms of water conservation are: (1) reduce seepage losses in the existing system, (2) change operationsof existing systems to meet contemporary needs, and (3) develop multiple-use rather than single purposefacilities. Each has significant implications for the recreation uses and resource management of the waterdevelopments. Examples of each follow.

1) Reduce Seepage Losses: Most of the 16,000 miles of BoR water conveyances are not lined by con-crete. Canals lose water simply through the saturation of the clay lining which results in establishing riparianhabitat and wetlands adjacent to the canals. Such seepage also recharges the groundwater. Lining is essentialto deliver the maximum water to its destination.

In the case of lining most of the Coachella Canal in southern California, BoR used modern designs andtechniques. Concrete lining was placed without dewatering the canal, interrupting water service, and protect-ing the canal fishery. A stair step configuration of the lining was placed in the canal to allow deer and otherlarge entrapped mammals to escape the water. Some fishermen trespass on BoR canal right-of-ways andoccasionally fall into the canals. On the newly lined Coachella canal, fishermen would be able to use the staircase configuration to escape.

BoR, the Central Valley Irrigation District and Imperial County developed a joint program to establishpublic fishing in the lined portion of the canal (USDI Bureau of Reclamation, 1993). The program will bemanaged by the Imperial County Parks Department, which will provide liability insurance. The terminalreservoir for the canal is the 120 surface-acre Lake Cahuilla in which canal entrained fish will end theirjourney. The lake is also stocked by the State of California. In 1988, 14,958 anglers fished in Lake Cahuilla.

Other BoR canals will be lined to conserve water and provide new and safer fishing opportunities forwestern anglers. The key to opening up canal rights-of-way for fishing and other recreation uses, such astrails, will be other governmental entities’ willingness to assume the recreation management responsibilities.The recreation management entities must also have cooperation from the irrigation districts.

2) Change Operation of Existing Facilities: There are several examples of changing operations primarilybrought about by mandates of law and changing uses of water through the market system. Three of theseexamples are: a) changing hydroelectric operations of the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Ari-zona, b) changing operations of a whole water development system to meet contemporary needs of a region,and c) change in design for dam outlets.

Glen Canvon Dam Operations

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 requires the Secretary of the Interior “...to protect, mitigateadverse impacts to, and improve the values for which the Grand Canyon National Park and Glen CanyonNational Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to natural and cultural resources andvisitor use.” Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1964, has historically been used primarily for power generationduring periods of peak demand. The reservoir, Lake Powell, is part of the Glen Canyon NRA which annuallyserves over 3.5 million visitors. Below the dam, the Colorado River flows through Grand Canyon NationalPark for nearly 300 miles before entering Lake Mead NRA. The stretch through the Grand Canyon is verypopular for river running. Concessions serve thousands of visitors with lengthy river running trips, backpack-ing, and horseback excursions down to and along the Colorado River. The National Park Service has a lo-yearwaiting list of applicants who want to run the river in their own craft through the Grand Canyon.

Glen Canyon Dam altered the natural flows of the Colorado River, significantly changing the riverineecosystem vegetation, the stabilization of sandy beaches used for overnight camping, and the well-being ofriver users. The water level fluctuations would vary from 3 feet to 12 feet overnight. The historical releasesranged from 3,000 cubic feet per second to 44,500 cubic feet within a 24-hour period. After years of compre-hensive environmental studies, plus an interim operating schedule which reduced the wide variation of flowreleases usually between 6,000 and 8,000 cubic feet, a final operation procedure was established (USDI Bu-reau of Reclamation, 1995). The new operations are more recreation user and environmentally friendly, andthey resemble more closely the historical natural flows of the Colorado River. Recreation users of the Colo-rado River in the Grand Canyon had a significant influence on passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act.Recreators will no doubt have a significant influence on the future operations of other water developments.


Char@inP Oneration of Existing &stems

Public Law 101-618, The Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990,and Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Projects Authorization Adjustment Act, with numerous titles forspecific directions for each project, are examples of changing water uses and priorities. These laws will signifi-cantly affect the long-term trend of water use, priorities, and alter changes of water operations to meet con-temporary needs. Recreation, although recognized as a purpose for water development, but not a “beneficialuse” of water, has a potential of benefitting from the new operation changes. One of the congressional direc-tives includes the restoration of historic river flows to bring back anadromous fisheries to California. Any timefisheries are improved, recreation users will also benefit from the water system changes that bring back thefish habitat.

Some of the irrigation districts, which sponsored most of the water developments in the western states,are selling their water and water rights to developing urban areas. Water formerly used for irrigation is beingconverted to municipal and industrial use and low head hydroelectric power. That means projects which havesystems of dams and water storage, diversion structures, canals, powerplants and pump-back storage power-plants are altering the schedules of water releases in the system. The urban consumer demands for water aresomewhat different than the water demands for irrigating crops. Studies are underway to examine the opera-tion changes and determine the recreation and tourism implications of longer water retention in reservoirsand streams during the prime season. If higher reservoir water levels can be retained during the prime recre-ation season, the reservoirs may experience greater visitation for longer periods of time.

Chances in Dam Outlet DesiPn

Many times when water is developed prime riparian-habitat is lost. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servicewill recommend mitigation measures to BoR to enhance fish and wildlife. At times when Congress providesfunding, BoR will follow the recommendations which result in significant resource enhancement. One of theenhancements is the development of multiple level release capability of dams to tap the stratified watertemperatures in the reservoirs. This multi-level release capability and a change in operation of the dam pro-vides favorable fishery habitat for food and reproduction of fish in the river below the dam.

Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah was the first dam with multiple level releases which created a blue ribbonfishery on the Green River below the dam. A water temperature “curtain” to tap the stratified water tempera-tures was installed at Shasta Dam, California, to enhance the downstream fishery habitat of the SacramentoRiver. The blended water temperatures will enhance fish growth and reproduction. Any time the fishery isenhanced and fishing improves, recreation users benefit. Fishing opportunities are scarce in the west becauseof the low number of available streams, lakes and reservoirs. The quality of fishing is significantly improved bythe multi-level releases of the dams. More dams will be retrofitted with multi-level capability in the future asfunds become available.

3) Develop Multiple Uses: The water conveyances were designed specifically for only transporting waterfrom one place to another. Fish from reservoirs and streams frequently become entrained in the water con-veyance flows. Canals have a sterile habitat with little food, cover and opportunities for reproduction, andsome of the flows are too swift. Some of the fish in water conveyances die because of the poor habitat condi-tions.

Fisheries found in conveyance facilities have either been unmanaged or closed to fishing. BoR scientistsare exploring the development of favorable fishery habitat in canals to accommodate entrained fish, andprovide new fishing opportunities for anglers (Mueller, 1996; Mueller & Liston, 1994). The Arizona Game andFish Department is promoting a highly successful urban fishery program that accommodated over 225,000angler trips in 1988 (Agyagos, et al. 1990). Another example of the recreation potential of urban canals is theSalt River Project canals in Phoenix. The canal has the potential to provide an additional 750,000 angler-daysand generate $1.5 million annually from the sale of new fishing licenses. Existing water facilities may bepressed into service to meet future fishing needs, especially in the urban areas where such opportunities arescarce.


Summarv for Trends in the Bureau of Reclamation

Population growth in the western United States continues to challenge the management of westernwaters for recreation. Trends in population growth, changes in water needs, and scarcity of water resourcerecreation opportunities have triggered legislation to explore water conservation methods. Legislation is thedriving force to reduce seepage, change operations of water development systems, and invent new technolo-gies for improving downstream fishery habitats. Conversion of single purpose water conveyances to multipleuse, and public-friendly access is a trend beginning to meet the urban population’s recreation needs. Thesetrends will carry over into the next century.

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersThe CE (or “Corps”) has 456 reservoirs and other water projects in 42 states. The CE provides impor-

tant outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the United States, despite managing only about 11.5 millionacres of land and water (Table 111.1). This acreage ranks fifth among federal agencies-only about one-sevenththe amount of NPS land and well below 10 percent of both FS and BLM land. Two major factors account for theCE’s status as a leading outdoor recreation supplier: accessibility and attractiveness. Accessibility is evidentin the proximity of many Corps projects to metropolitan areas and the fact that they can accommodate largeuser populations. Corps recreation areas are attractive because they contain bodies of water, a traditional“magnet” which attracts visitors.

Nearly half of CE land and water in the United States is located in the South. Southern acreage is almosttwice that of the next ranking region, the North. The Pacific Coast has many Corps projects, but total land andwater area in that region is less than five percent of the U.S. total. Like BoR, the CE leases management ofmany of its recreation areas, but not to the same extent. According to CE’s 1994 Natural Resources Manage-ment System (NRMS) database, the agency administers 4,331 developed recreation areas at its projects,about 58 percent of which are managed directly by the CE. The remainder are managed by other federalagencies, concessionaires, state and local governments, and special government districts and associations.

Developed recreation areas administered by the CE cover about 1.7 million acres or about 15 percent oftotal agency area. Although 9.8 million acres remain “undeveloped,” just over 80 percent of Corps recreationuse occurs at developed sites. The CE also has a number of developed recreation areas devoted to intensiverecreation use. In 1994 these areas covered about 220,000 acres, or 13 percent, of the developed acreage.Facilities offered at developed recreation areas include swimming pools, boat rentals, fishing piers, campsites,picnic sites, boat ramps, swimming areas, and trails.

The Corps of Engineers Recreation Program: Current and Future Trends

(By R. Scott Jackson, Research Biologist, Environmental Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS; David J. Wahus, Chief, Recreation Programs Section, Natural ResourceManagement Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.; and H. Roger Hamilton, Chief, Re-source Analysis Branch, Environmental Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, MS)

ProPram Overview

The Corps of Engineers is a major command within the Department of the Army providing civil engi-neering support to the Army and other organizations within the United States and countries worldwide. Animportant component of the Corps of Engineers (CE) mission is to develop and manage water resources in theUnited States for a variety of purposes including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water supply, fish andwildlife and recreation. Currently the CE has 456 multiple purpose water resource development projectsunder its jurisdiction. These projects include reservoirs and navigation systems in 42 states throughout theU.S.

CE projects constitute a nationally significant recreation resource with over 11 million acres of landand water and over 40 thousand miles of shoreline (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Projects range fromlarge remote reservoirs on the Missouri River in the Upper Great Plains to small urban reservoirs in NewEngland. Over 80 percent of CE projects are within fifty miles of a major metropolitan area. These projectsreceived over 375 million visits in 1996 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997) and serve one in ten Americansannually. Recreational use of CE projects represents some of the most intense recreational activity within thefederal estate. CE projects receive nearly 30 percent of federal recreation use on less than two percent of the


federally managed lands and waters. This results in the need for vigilant management of CE resources tomaintain high levels of visitor satisfaction and minimize conflicts among user groups. The close proximity ofCE projects to metropolitan areas and the water-oriented nature of GE projects influences recreation usepatterns. Over 80 percent of the visits to CE projects are day trips with boating, swimming, and sightseeingamong the most popular activities.

A major factor in the success of the CE recreation program is the high level of cooperation between theCE and non-federal partners to provide recreation facilities on CE projects. Over 40 percent of the over 4300recreation areas on CE projects are operated by non-federal partners including other federal agencies, state,county and local units of government and a variety of non-governmental organizations. In addition, 685commercial concessions provide those services which can be most effectively offered by the private sector.This cooperative approach has provided a wide variety of recreational opportunities on CE projects for theAmerican public.

One of the important motivations for cooperators to participate in the CE recreation program is thesignificant economic impact of spending by visitors to CE projects. It was estimated that over $12 billion wasspent by visitors to GE projects in 1994. This resulted in $5 billion in income and 187,000 jobs in industriesdirectly supplying goods and services to CE visitors. Secondary effects of visitor spending accounted for anadditional 410,000 jobs (Jackson, et al., 1996).

Factors AffectinP the Future Direction of the CE Recreation ProPram

Important factors affecting the demand for the Corps recreation program are the multiple purposenature of CE projects, the close proximity of CE projects to U.S. population centers and the fact that most CEmanaged recreation resources are associated with lakes and rivers. Taken together, these factors provide astrong indication that demand will continue to be high for recreation opportunities on CE projects. Theeffects of this high demand can be seen at many lakes where boaters compete with personal watercraft foraccess to-the water on busy summer weekends. These demands have created significant challenges for CEmanagers. The following are examples of program initiatives which respond to these challenges.

Performance Goals and Measures: The CE recreation program along with most federal programs cur-rently operate under severe financial and manpower constraints at a time when demand for recreation oppor-tunities at CE projects are at their greatest. Many recreation program initiatives have focused on increasingprogram efficiency and effectiveness. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1992 requires that allfederal agencies develop and implement performance goals and measures for agency programs. The recre-ation program was identified as one of nine major business areas within the CE Civil Works Program. Perfor-mance goals and measures are being implemented to guide the evaluation of program efficiency and effective-nessL .

Recreational Fisheries: Individual recreation user groups have been successful in influencing theemphasis on federal recreation programs. For instance, Executive Order 12692, signed by the President on 7June 1995, directed federal agencies to restore and enhance aquatic systems to the extent permitted by lawand, where practical, provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. This Order hasresulted in an evaluation of CE operations to identify opportunities to increase public access and the qualityof fisheries resources and the development of a recreational fisheries conservation plan.

CE managed fisheries resources are nationally significant, providing for approximately 2.5 percent, or100 million visits, of all U.S. freshwater fishing visits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Activities initi-ated in 1996 under this Executive Order include improving over 900,000 surface acres of water for fisheriesresources; establishing or restoring 46 populations of fish; conducting over 12,000 public outreach programsfor fishing, aquatic resources and boater safety; and establishing 137 partnerships that produced over $3million in recreational fishing and habitat improvements.

Enhancing Recreation Opportunities: Two pieces of legislation have placed high priority on the iden-tification of opportunities for enhancing recreation programs on CE projects. The Omnibus Parks and PublicLand Management Act of 1996 (PL 104-333) calls for the creation of a nine member commission to be ap-pointed by the President to conduct a National Recreation Lakes Review. The purpose is to evaluate thecurrent and anticipated demand for recreation opportunities at federally-managed man-made lakes and reser-voirs and develop alternatives for enhanced recreation use of such facilities. In addition Section 208 of the


Water Resources Development Act of 1996 directs the Secretary of the Army to provide increased emphasisand opportunities for recreation at water resources projects operated, maintained or constructed by the Corpsof Engineers. Taken together, this legislation provides an opportunity to position the CE recreation programto more effectively respond to rapidly growing and changing recreation demand.

Multiple Use Water Management: Increased demand for CE project resources is not confined torecreation. Changing land use patterns and economic conditions have required that the CE reevaluate watermanagement strategies for many river systems under the agency’s jurisdiction. Droughts in the upper Midwestin the late 1980s led to an evaluation of Missouri River water management practices to give greater consider-ation to the effects of current operations on recreational use of CE reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota andSouth Dakota (USAE Missouri River Division, 1994). Similar comprehensive evaluation of water managementpractices associated with the Columbia River System (U.S. Department of Energy et al., 1994), and majorriver systems in Florida, Alabama and Georgia have focused attention on the implications of water manage-ment actions on recreational use of thcsc systems and increased the awareness of the importance of main-taining effective techniques for monitoring recreational use of these systems.

Recreation Ueer Fees: User fees are essential to finance the operation of CE managed recreation areas.Under current policies, fee revenues are used to offset federal operation and maintenance funding. The Om-nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (PL 103-66) authorized the GE to charge user fees for certain day usefacilities. Prior to that time, user fees were confined to camping and group facilities. Fee revenues have in-creased in the past several years. In Fiscal Year 1996, the CE collected over 834 million, a 26 percent increaseover 1995. These funds are returned to the CE for operation and maintenance activities.

Volunteer Program: The public has increasingly demonstrated personal support for the CE-recreationand natural resources program. In 1996 over 70,000 volunteers provided services valued at over $9 million insupport of CE management activities. Volunteers participated in wide variety of activities including lake cleanupprograms, tree planting, fish habitat, and environmental education projects.

Challenge Cost Share Program: Recent legislation provided an opportunity for the public to partici-pate in support of CE programs. Section 225 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1992 authorized theSecretary of the Army to enter into cooperative agreements with non-federal public and private entities toprovide support to CE recreation and natural resource management programs where facilities are being man-aged at complete federal expense. The policy, known as the A Challenge Cost Share Program, allows the CE toaccept contributions of funds, materials, and services in conjunction with its program. By September 1996,16 agreements had been signed under the program. Cost share partners have provided over $300,000 infunds, materials and services in addition to the 8205 thousand contributed by the CE.

Summarv for Arm-

Tourism has become a major industry both globally and nationally. Outdoor recreation resource man-agemcnt at Corps of Engineer lakes play a significant role in that industry. Corps lakes form the nucleus of thestate park systems in some states. Recreation, a function of multipurpose water resource development whichreceived little consideration a few years ago, is now an important purpose of these lakes. Recreation benefitsto the public are now on par with or exceed benefits from the traditional functions of flood control or naviga-tion. Recreation use continues to increase at a dramatic rate on many projects, while the natural resourcebase which supports it remains constant or slightly diminished as new demands for a variety of uses areplaced on it. The CE recreation program faces significant challenges to respond to this intense recreationdemand. Most recreation opportunities provided by the CE support water-based recreation activities whichare projected to increase in the future. Technological innovations such as the introduction of personal water-craft will increase the complexity of managing recreation use to minimize conflict and maintain visitor safetyand satisfaction.


In the future, visitors will continue to demand a high-quality recreation experience and value for thefees they pay. Managers will seek partnerships with public and private organizations to enhance recreationopportunities and increase public participation in the recreation program. Competition for water supplied bymultiple-purpose water resource development projects in many parts of the country will increase in thefuture. This will require that the benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, of the CE recreation program bereassessed periodically in order to provide the information necessary to make tradeoffs between competinguses of water.

Tennessee Valley Authority9The TVA was created in 1933 as one of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Its purpose was to

improve environmental, social, and economic conditions in the Tennessee River watershed, an area whichcovers some 41,000 square miles and incorporates portions of seven Southeastern states. The primary mis-sion assigned to TVA was to manage the Tennessee River and its tributaries to provide flood control, improvenavigation, and generate hydroelectric power. To meet these three key objectives, TVA has developed a seriesof 28 multipurpose dams along 650 miles of the Tennessee River and its tributaries. These reservoirs, with atotal of over 600,000 acres of surface water and 11,000 miles of shoreline, have become a major source foroutdoor recreation in the region.

TVA established its Recreation Resources program in the late 1960s and began providing recreationimprovements such as picnic facilities, boat ramps, access roads, and sanitary facilities. TVA’s policy foroutdoor recreation has been to encourage development by other public agencies and private investors, toreserve some land for wildlife management and hunting, to transfer appropriate forest land to the NationalPark Service and USDA Forest Service, and to manage its own recreation facilities along reservoir shorelines.TVA’s undeveloped land above reservoir shorelines is open for picnicking, walking, and camping unless other-wise posted. The agency is also involved in trail development, mostly near its developed recreation areas andpopulation centers, and operates a number of river access points for whitewater recreation.

All TVA resources are in the South. Overall, the TVA owns slightly more than a million acres of land andwater (Table 111.1). Approximately 440,000 land acres are open to the public for outdoor recreation, the largemajority of this area is undeveloped. Only about 25,000 acres are actually in developed recreation areas,some managed by TVA and some by state and local government agencies. A 1992 TVA inventory showed their25,000 acres being distributed across 164 recreation areas on 30 reservoirs. These areas provide facilities forboat launching, picnicking, bank fishing, swimming, hiking or walking, and camping. Another 228,000 acres(not shown in Table 111.1) are leased to other federal agencies and to state, county, and municipal govern-ments. Group camps, clubs, and an estimated 300 commercial recreation enterprises also lease a substantialportion of TVA land, although acreages are unknown. Further, the 1988 TVA Handbook listed 91 public accesssites on 24 rivers and streams managed by TVA.

Unique among TVA resources is the 170,000-acre Land Between the Lakes (LBL) national recreationarea in Kentucky and Tennessee.‘” LBL differs from other TVA resources in the amount of its natural re-sources devoted to outdoor recreation and environmental education, as well as in the level of services andfacilities provided. LBL is operated under a multiple-use management philosophy. Facilities include a visitorcenter with planetarium, wildlife interpretive areas, a living history farm, a designated off-highway vehiclearea, several campgrounds, lake access areas, and hiking and equestrian trails.

Due to decreases in federal appropriations, TVA has taken steps to reduce the scope of its recreationfacilities management program. For example, TVA conveyed 14 of its developed recreation areas to otheroperators in 1996 to reduce costs. These arrangements are structured to ensure the facilities remain open andavailable to the general public, while at the same time giving alternative operators flexibility to manage areasto meet their needs and objectives. This situation has occurred at a time when recreation use pressures on theTennessee River system appear to be increasing. Increases in general boating activity, fishing, informal recre-ation use of undeveloped TVA shoreline land, and the construction of private water use facilities associatedwith waterfront residential development are especially prominent trends. TVA strategies and initiatives whichaddress the future of its Recreation Resources program include:

“Portions of this section were written by Robert A. Marker, Recreation Specialist, Tennessee Valley Authority.

lOAlthough called a “National Recreation Area” by the TVA, LBL is not included among the specially designated National RecreationAreas managed by the FS, NW, and BLM which are described later in this Chapter.


Decreasing its role as a direct provider of recreation facilities and services. The current trend towardestablishing partnerships with others to manage TVA recreation facilities is likely to continue. Estab-lishment of additional user fees may also be considered to increase cost recovery at areas TVA contin-ues to operate.Solicitation of new commercial recreation development at selected reservoir sites where recreationneeds can be identified and private investment is determined to be feasible.A greater focus on the management of recreation use along undeveloped shorelines land to improvetheir quality and protect the resources. This will involve cooperative partnerships with other publicagencies and volunteer groups.Increased cooperation with state boating agencies and other organizations to promote safe boatingpractices.Development and implementation of plans for guiding future construction of private residential wateruse facilities on the reservoir system.Seeking a greater degree of public input to ensure that public needs and values are considered in recre-ation and resource management planning.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(By V. Robert Leeworthy, Senior Economist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Silver Spring, MD)

NOAA is different from most other agencies that provide outdoor recreation opportunities. NOAA doesnot own recreation areas; however, the agency does directly manage 12 sites called National Marine Sanctuar-ies (Table 111.3). Generally, NOAA does not provide facilities. Exceptions are the museum at the MonitorNational Marine Sanctuary in North Carolina and the aquarium at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctu-ary in C’alifornia, which NOAA partially funds. NOAA’s primary mission is to provide scientific information tosupport management of the nation’s coastal and ocean resources. NOAA’s focus is primarily on natural re-sources that provide outdoor recreation opportunities. The agency directly and indirectly influences manage-ment of coastal and ocean resources through several programs described in the following sections. BecauseNOAA does not own any of the resources it manages, it is pioneering efforts in multi-jurisdictional, integratedmanagement efforts. The National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) are the only areas NOAA directly manages foroutdoor recreation opportunities. The trends, issues, and directions the agency are facing are described withrespect to these sanctuaries.

NOAA is organized into three major services: (1) the National Weather Service (NWS), (2) the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and (3) the National Ocean Service (NOS). Most are familiar with NWSlocal, regional, and national weather forecasts as well as hurricane tracking. The kS provides invaluableinformation for planning outdoor recreation activities. The NMFS manages the nation’s marine fisheries incooperation with the states. NMFS establishes regulations in federal waters and works with the states throughregional fishery management councils to develop fishery management plans and consistent regulations acrossjurisdictions (not always successful). NMFS manages the fishery resources for both commercial and recre-ational fisheries. The NOS provides both nautical and aeronautical charts that are important for recreationalboating and flying. The NOS also houses the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) andthe Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA). OCRM administers the Coastal ZoneManagement program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and the National Marine Sanctuariesprogram. These programs form the core of NOAA management of coastal and ocean resources that supportoutdoor recreation. ORCA supports OCRM and other agencies by providing assessment services. For ex-ample, ORCA has had an interagency agreement since 1987 with the USDA Forest Service Outdoor Recre-ation and Wilderness Assessment Group to gather information and conduct economic analyses of outdoorrecreational uses in coastal areas.


Table 111.3: National Marine Sanctuaries Managed by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, 1997

Name

Channel IslandsCordell BankFagatele BayFlorida KeysFlower Garden BanksGray’s ReefGulf of FarallonesHawaiian Islands Humpback WhaleMonitorMonterey BayOlympic CoastJerry E. Studds Stellwagon BankThunder Bay (proposed)Northwest Straits (proposed)All Sanctuaries

State

CaliforniaCaliforniaAmerican SamoaFloridaTexas/LouisianaGeorgiaCaliforniaHawaiiNorth CarolinaCaliforniaWashingtonMassachusettsMichiganWashington

Area (Sq. Mi.)

1,658526

0.253,674

5623

1,2551,300

15,3283,310

842--

17,973.25

Year Designated

19801989198619901992198119811992197.5199219941992--

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation andAssessment.

The nation’s coastal and ocean areas represent some of the most ecologically and economically impor-tant regions of the country. Congress recognized this in 1972 when it passed the Coastal Zone ManagementAct (CZMA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The CZMA created a partnership between OCRM andstate and territorial governments. Day-to-day management decisions are made at the state level in 30 statesand 21 individual national estuarine research reserves. OCRM field staff make day-to-day decisions in the 12national marine sanctuaries.

These programs are greater than the sum of their parts. They represent national systems for the protec-tion and management of critical coastal and ocean resources. OCRM provides the leadership necessary tosupport and enhance these national networks.

OCRM supports and encourages research and monitoring to answer management questions through themarine and estuarine protected area systems. OCRM also makes and influences national coastal and oceanpolicy: advocating for wetlands and coral reef protection, coastal hazard mitigation, nonpoint source pollu-tion control, waterfront revitalization, and public access to the shore. OCRM ensures that federal agencydecisions are consistent with state coastal management programs and coordinates with national estuarineresearch reserves and national marine sanctuaries. OCRM also uses national outreach and education cam-paigns to enhance public awareness and understanding of coastal and marine issues. Finally, OCRM shares itsexpertise through direct technical assistance to other countries to foster responsible ocean and coastal man-agement globally.

NOAA’s role and status in providing outdoor recreation opportunities is growing through its manage-ment of the nation’s coastal and ocean resources. The National Marine Sanctuaries program continues toexpand. In 1990, the Florida. Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) was designated. Prior to 1990, theFlorida Keys contained two national marine sanctuaries: the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary and theLooe Key National Marine Sanctuary. The two early sanctuaries existed entirely in federal waters and repre-sented a relatively small portion of the entire Florida Keys. The newly created FKNMS includes all waterssurrounding the Florida Keys, an area over 3,600 square miles. Thus, this new sanctuary encompasses mul-tiple governmental jurisdictions requiring an integrated approach to management. Multiple jurisdictionalsanctuaries are a new trend. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (designated in 1992) and theOlympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (designated in 1994) are multiple jurisdictional sanctuaries, as arethe proposed Thunder Bay, located entirely in the Michigan state waters of Lake Huron, and the NorthwestStraits Sanctuaries, located entirely in the Washington state waters of Puget Sound. The proposed ThunderBay National Marine Sanctuary would be the first freshwater sanctuary. Also, the scope of the proposed Thun-der Bay Sanctuary is currently limited to underwater cultural resources. Although this is similar to the Moni-


tor National Marine Sanctuary, it expands the scope and direction of the sanctuary program. The ThunderBay sanctuary will primarily serve the interests of recreational divers.

Three emerging concepts in natural resource management explain recent changes in the sanctuaryprogram. The concepts of ecosystem management, sustainability or sustainable development, and integratedmanagement have forced the agency into rethinking its management of natural resources. The National Ma-rine Sanctuary program has become a testing ground for integrating these concepts into coherent manage-ment strategies. The recently approved management plan for the FKNMS reflects this integration.

Federal Water Resources and Facilities

The BoR, CE, and TVA are the primary federal water resource management agencies. Other federalagencies also have responsibility for a variety of water resources, including streams, rivers, lakes, bays, andestuaries. The FS, in particular, manages numerous streams, rivers, and lakes within its 191-million-acreNational Forest System. Most National Wildlife Refuges are around bays, estuaries, rivers, or wetlands. TheNational Park Service has three types of management units-national rivers, national seashores, and nationallakeshores-that focus on water resources, in addition to the multitude of water resources in the NationalParks System. Two other types of water areas, National Recreation Areas and National Wild and Scenic Rivers,are also managed by federal agencies. These are covered in more detail in the next section on federal speciallydesignated resources. The BLM has a surprising number of both river miles and water recreation facilitiesunder its management.

Water resource settings attract visitors. Often, land-based recreation facilities, like campgrounds, pic-nic sites, and trails, are built near water features. A comprehensive inventory of all federal water resources isnot available. Thus, it was not possible to assemble a table describing the total water acreage, river mileage, ornumber of water recreation facilities managed by the U.S. government. Instead, several statistics that serve asproxies are presented in Table 111.4.

Table 111.4: Acreage and Number of Selected Water-Based Federal Resources by Agency and Region, 1996

AGENCY AND TYPE OF RESOURCE REGION (ACRES IN 1000s)

North South RockyMountains

PacificCoast

U.S. Total

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSWater acres 1,310.l 2,613.4 1,360.9 299.0 5583.4Number of boat ramps 303 1,408 185 a 7 1,983Number of swimming areas 107 423 43 36 609

NATIONAL PARK SERVICENational River acres’ 370.7 233.9 0 30.8 635.4National Seashore/Lakeshore acres 315.3 435.1 0 71.1 821.5Number units with swimming 35 59 24 38 156Number units with boating 58 124 32 56 270

BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONWater acres 0 93.5 1,195.9 395.5 1,684.9Number sites with swimming’ 0 1 1 107 70 188

Number sites with boating? 0 11 145 84 240BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT3

Miles of floatable rivers managed 0 0 0 * 5,400B o a t a n d a c c e s s p o i n t sramps 0 0 0 0 127

USDA FOREST SERVICENumber of boating sites4 474 262 385 226 1,347Number of swimming sites4 107 99 66 36 308

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICENumber of Refuges with boating 35 84 44 31 194Number of Refuges with fishing 48 83 48 35 214Number of Refuges with hunting 43 83 67 49 242


Table III.4 Cont.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYNumber of swimming beaches 0 59 0 0 59Number of boat ramps 0 160 0 0 160

‘Includes all NPS river-based units: National River and Recreation Area, Wild River, National Scenic River, NationalRiver, Scenic and Recreational River, National Scenic Riverway, National Recreational River, Wild and Scenic River.Only selected Wild and Scenic Rivers managed by the National Park Service are classified as NPS Units. This acreagereflects only those classified units.

‘Includes all sites administered by BuRec. Only 44 of 308 sites nationally are actually managed by BuRec.

3Regional distribution of BLM water resources is not available by region (” denotes a number greater than zero). Exceptfor a very small number of boating sites in the eastern states (shown as 0 in table), all resources are in the RockyMountains and Pacific Coast regions.

41ncludes fee and non-fee sites managed by the Forest Service and its concessionaires.

Sources: Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Management System, 1994.National Park Service Statistical Abstract. 1995.Bureau of Reclamation, Recreation Areas on Bureau Projects, 1992.Bureau of Land Management, Recreation Management Information System, 1996.USDA Forest Service: Site and Facilities Report, 1996.U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuges: A Visitor’s Guide, 1995.Tennessee Valley Authority, “Development of TVA Recreation Facilities Cumulative throughSeptember 30, 1992.”

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWater resources account for about 5.5 million of CE properties, or just under half of the total acreage

managed by that agency (Table 111.4). Almost half of CE water acreage is in the South. Comparatively few CEwater resources are in the Pacific Coast region. Nationally, the Corps manages almost 2,000 boat ramps, mostof which are in the South. The South also has almost 70 percent of the Corps’ swimming areas. Few CEswimming areas are in the Rocky Mountain or Pacific Coast regions.

National Park ServiceNationwide, about 42 percent of the 369 NPS units provide swimming opportunities (Table 111.4). Units

with swimming areas are fairly evenly distributed across the four regions, with the most located in the Southand the least in the Rocky Mountain region. Considerably more NPS units offer boating. The South region hasmore than twice as many units as any other region that offer boating opportunities and nearly half of thenational total. Significant water resources that support a variety of recreational uses exist in nearly all of thenational parks and many other NPS units. Some of the units have special water resource designations.

National rivers, seashores, and lakeshores are water-based outdoor recreation settings. Table III.4 showsthe land and water acreage in these units. Almost 1.5 million acres nationwide are classified as national rivers,seashores, or lakeshores.” Over 95 percent of the 635,400 acres in 15 national rivers are located in the twoEastern regions. The only Western national river is the Alagnak Wild River in Alaska. Tennessee has the mostnational river acreage of any state with almost 100,000. Minnesota and Missouri rank next with over 80,000national river acres each. Two national rivers-the Mississippi and the Big South Fork-are part of jointnational river and recreation area units.‘? Only one national river, the Bluestone National River in West Vir-ginia, has been established since 1987.

““National River” is used here as a generic term which summarizes a variety of linear water resources in the NPS. These include thefollowing classified units: National River and Recreation Area, Wild River, National Scenic River, National River, Scenic and Recre-ational River, National Scenic Riverway, National Recreational River, and Wild and Scenic River. Only selected Wild and Scenic Riversmanaged by the National Park Service are classified as NPS Units. This acreage reflects only those classified units.

“These two areas are included in the National River analysis and not in the National Recreation Area data covered later in this chapter.


National seashore and lakeshore acreage is distributed similarly to national rivers. Thirteen of the 14national seashore and national lakeshore units, comprising more than 90 percent of the acreage, are in thetwo Eastern regions. Only Point Reyes National Seashore in California is in the West. All four national lakeshoresare in the North region along the Great Lakes. All but two of the Eastern national seashores are in the South,the two largest being the Gulf Islands in Florida and Mississippi, and Padre Island in Texas. The most recentnational seashore or lakeshore designation was in 1975.

Bureau of ReclamationThe BoR manages about 1.7 million acres of water, roughly 25 percent of its total area (Table 111.4). The

large majority (86 percent) of the 308 recreation areas that BoR administers are leased. Even though it doesnot manage most of the areas, BoR’s recreation areas brochure lists information about all sites. About 60percent of the agency’s recreation sites have facilities for swimming, while 78 percent offer boating. For bothsets of sites, well over half are in the Rocky Mountain region, where most of the BoR property is located.

The Bureau of Reclumation is a major provider of water-bused recreation facilities, including this boat ramp at L..akeBerryessa, Culifomiu.

Bureau of Land ManagementThe BLM manages a substantial number of river miles, many of which are highly valued for whitewater

recreation. The Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area in Colorado, jointly managed with the ColoradoDivision of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, is one example. In total, the BLM manages more than 5,400 milesof floatable rivers and 125 boat access sites (Table 111.4). The regional distribution of these resources was notavailable. The BLM estimates that it manages approximately 174,000 miles of fishable streams and 2.6 millionacres of lakes and reservoirs.

USDA Forest ServiceThousands of lakes and numerous river headwaters are in the national forests. The FS keeps data on the

number of recreation sites that offer boating and swimming facilities, both those that charge fees and thosethat do not (Table 111.4). More than four times as many areas offer boating than swimming opportunities.These are relatively evenly distributed across the four regions. Of the boating sites, about 35 percent are inthe North, followed by 29 percent in the Rocky Mountains. About two-thirds of swimming sites are in the


Eastern regions. The Rocky Mountain region has a relatively smaller share of swimming sites and the PacificCoast region has just 12 percent of all agency swimming sites. FS data show an 11 percent gain in boating sitessince 1992. Swimming areas declined by five percent during the same period.

Dyur Pusture Wiiter~bwl Areu in Greene County, Georgia is u tnigrmny bird hubitut ureu sponsored colluborutively6y the USLX4 Forest Sewice. the Georgia Depurtment ofNutwu1 Resources. Ducks Unlitni&, mu1 Georgia PowerCotnpuny. Photo courtesy oj Cussundru 1: Johnson.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe FWS does not keep a database of the water-based sites available for public recreation on national

wildlife refuges. However, refuge acreage is an indicator of water-based recreation opportunities, since mostrefuges are along coastal waters, wetlands, and flyways. Acreage in the National Wildlife Refuge System ispresented in Table III.1 (p, 41). Information in the National Wildlife Refuge Visitor’s Guide indicates whethera refuge is open for boating, fishing, or hunting. Of the 31’9 refuges open for public use, 61 percent allowboating, two-thirds allow fishing, and three-fourths allow hunting. The two Western regions have more refugesopen for hunting than for either boating or fishing. In the North, more refuges are open for fishing. The largemajority of Southern refuges allow all three uses.

Tennessee Valley AuthorityMost TVA acreage is associated with water-based recreation. A 1992 TVA report indicates the agency

has 59 swimming beaches and 160 boat ramps, all in the South (Table 111.4). This total includes only a few ofthe water-based sites leased by the TVA to other government bodies, group camps, clubs, and commercialproviders.‘”

%ome, but only a few, of the recreation areas listed in the TVA report “Development of TVA Recreation Facilities Cumulative ThroughSeptember 30, 1992” are areas leased to State, county and municipal governments. This list is incomplete compared to information inthe 1988 TVA Handbook. The handbook describes 118 public parks, 455 public access areas and roadside parks, 55 group camps andclubs, and 298 commercial recreation areas on land leased from the TVA. Since these data are somewhat dated as of 1997, this situationhas undoubtedly changed.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory


The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of free-flowing, undeveloped river segments withoutstanding wild, scenic, or recreation potential. Begun in 1982, the NRI database is compiled and main-tained by the NPS. As of 1995, there were 3,377 river segments in the NRI totaling almost 85,000 miles (TableIII.5).14 The NRI was developed as a result of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and executivedirectives that require each federal agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified by the NRI.River segments identified by the NRI do not include designated wild and scenic rivers but represent potentialadditions.‘” NRI river segments are important resources for whitewater and dispersed recreation. Some 191river segments were added to the NRI in 1995 from a few state government river assessments. All othersegments in the database were identified by the FS, NPS, or BLM.

NRI river segments are identified by their outstanding values. Types of values include scenic, recre-ational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, and other. Figure III.1 shows U.S. counties with one or moreNRI river segments with outstanding resource values. Mileage for all NRI river segments and for each valueindividually (except ‘other’) are presented in Table 111.5. By comparison, the U.S. total mileage of outstandingriver segments identified by the NRI miles is almost eight times the 10,816 river miles formally protected asdesignated national Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Table 111.5: Miles of Outstanding River Segments by Recreational or Amenity Value and Region, 1995

Recreational orAmenity Value

North South

Region

Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Scenic 15,035 21,491 13,894 8,661 59,081Recreational 17,227 21,834 10,012 7,458 56,531Fish 9,405 18,591 10,849 9,857 48,702Wildlife 5,496 19,225 9,403 5,690 39,814Geologic 6,672 14,685 8,618 4,585 34,560Historic 5,606 12,064 4,121 2,795 24,586Cultural 1,746 9,916 5,389 2,391 19,442All Values’ 27,843 24,378 16,631 15,803 84,655

‘Mileage for the various values is not additive because river segments may have more than one value.

Source: Nationwide Rivers Inventory. National Park Service. 1993. Additional river segments (191) wereadded to the database in 1995.

“Seventy-three river segments are located in two states, with each state having a record for its segment. Therefore, the databaseactually has 3,450 separate records.

IsThe National Wild and Scenic River System is described in the next section on specially designated federal resource systems.


Figure 111.1: Counties with Rivers Having Outstanding Resource Values Identified bythe Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 199516

Source: Nationwide Rivers I~we~ttory. National Park Service. 1993. Additional river segments (191) wereadded to the database in 1995.

There are considerably more NRI miles listed in the two Eastern regions. The North has the most rivermiles overall (almost one-third of the U.S. total), followed by the South, the Rocky Mountains and the PacificCoast. Alaska is the leader among the states, with 4,507 miles. Michigan, Washington, Oregon, New York,California, and North Carolina each have more than 3,000 miles of outstanding rivers.

Most rivers listed have more than one outstanding value. Nationally, just under 70 percent of river mileshave scenic value, and two-thirds have recreation value. Fish values are attributed to more than half the rivermiles and wildlife values to just under half. Geologic, historic, and cultural values are relatively less common,both nationally and in each of the four regions. Scenic values are most common for segments in the South andRocky Mountain regions. Nearly 90 percent of river miles in the South were also classified as having recre-ation value. In the North, about three-fifths of river miles were judged to be important for recreation. Itappears that in the South most river segments were assigned both scenic and recreation values. The Southalso has the highest percentage of river miles with wildlife values. The Pacific Coast is the only region wherethe most common value was something other than scenic or recreation. Fish values were present in 62 per-cent of rivers in this region, reflecting the importance of salmon and other anadromous fish.

Almost 35 percent of the NRI river segments were added to the inventory in either 1993 or 1995,representing just under 20 percent of total miles nationally. This increase probably represents movementtoward completing the inventory. While some rivers may have increased in quality enough now to qualify asoutstanding, other rivers likely have declined since first inventoried in 1982. Only about 23 percent of theriver segments originally cataloged in 1982 were updated for the 1993 database.

Specially Designated Federal Systems

Some federal land is specially designated as part of federal systems with special recreation values.These systems include the National Wilderness Preservation System, National Recreation Areas, NationalTrails, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers contain some of America’smost wild and undeveloped areas. National Scenic and Historic trails within the National Trails System pre-serve significant scenic and recreational corridors as well as important parts of the nation’s heritage. NationalRecreation Trails (NRT) are shorter, but significant trail resources, especially near urban areas. NationalRecreation Areas are a diverse group of resources ranging from pristine areas in Alaska to more developed,urban sites. All NRAs are managed primarily for their recreation and amenity values.

16Due to space constraints, none of the U.S. maps depicted in this chapter shows Alaska and Hawaii.


Historians describe a third wave of the conservation movement that commenced in the Kennedy Ad-ministration after the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). The 1962 ORRRC re-port to Congress spawned a variety of specially designated federal systems. The Wilderness Act (1964), theWild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968), and the National Trails System Act (1968) were all heavily influenced bythe ORRRC findings. National recreation areas (NRA) are technically not a system, but a policy circularwritten by the Recreation Advisory Council in 1963 spelled out the concept of an NRA and communicatedthis to Congress and the federal land-managing agencies. As a result, various pieces of legislation were passedin the 1960s and 1970s designating several NRAs.

Wilderness and wild and scenic river designations are governed by special criteria, so their establish-ment depends on unique natural features. On the other hand, many, if not most,of the NRTs and NRAs havebeen established under the philosophy of making federal recreation resources available to the general popula-tion. Zinser (1995) provided an excellent comprehensive summary of these systems. Here, these four systemsand changes since the late 1980s are briefly described. In addition to designated wild and scenic rivers, alsodescribed is the Nationwide Whitewater Inventory conducted by the American Whitewater Affiliation.

National Wilderness Preservation Sys ternUpon passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, 54 Forest Service primitive areas became units of the

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). All but four of these areas were in the West. The systemquadrupled in size when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 added 56 million acres(Figure 111.2). Designated Wilderness is not “new” federal land, rather Wilderness represents redesignation.Since 1980, growth has been modest, except in 1984 and 1994. In 1984,21 Wilderness bills added 7.3 millionacres to the NWPS, many in Eastern states. The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 added nearly 7.5million acres, split among the NPS, FS, and BLM. Roughly 3.16 million acres were designated as Wilderness inthe Death Valley National Park, some transferred from the BLM and the remainder from the former DeathValley National Monument.

Figure 111.2: Acreage Added to the National Wilderness Preservation System by Year, 1964-1994

1964 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994

’ Yearly totals after 1964 are not exact because data do not account for boundary changes and otheracreage adjustments not described in wilderness legislation. However, 1967 does show the substantialadjustment in Boundary Waters Canoe Area acreage.

Source: NWPS Unit Database. BLM Washington Office, Wilderness Staff. July 1995. Browning et al.(1988). Various Annual Reports of the National Wilderness Preservation System, published asU.S. House Documents.


In mid-1995, the NWPS consisted of about 103.6 million acres in 630 units, most in the West. Almostone out of six federal acres (16 percent), or about 4.5 percent of the total U.S. land area, is in the NWPS. Thetwo Western regions contain 96 percent of the system with just under 100 million acres (Table 111.6). Alaskaalone accounts for 57.4 of the 99.5 million Western Wilderness acres. All but about six million acres of AlaskaWilderness is managed by either the NPS or the FWS. Removing Alaska from the analysis, the West stillcontains over 91 percent of NWPS acreage, or 42.1 of the 46.2 million acres of non-Alaska Wilderness (Figure111.3). This distribution essentially mirrors the distribution of federal land in the United States.

Despite the uneven distribution of Wilderness acreage, only six states-Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island-have no designated Wilderness acreage. California has the most NWPSunits of any state (130), followed by Arizona (89), Alaska (49), and Colorado (40). Units range in size from the9.1-million-acre Wrangell-St. Elias Wilderness in Alaska to the 6-acre Pelican Island Wilderness in Florida andthe 6-acre Birch Islands Unit Wilderness in Maine. Upon its 1994 designation, the Death Valley Wilderness inCalifornia, with about 3.2 million acres, supplanted the 2.4 million acre Frank Church-River of No ReturnWilderness in Idaho as the largest unit in the contiguous States.

The NPS manages the greatest number of Wilderness acres, 43 million, almost 42 percent of the systemtotal (Table 111.6). All but 2.3 million of these acres, however, are in Alaska. The FS manages nearly two-thirdsof the NWPS acreage outside of Alaska. Currently, there are about 5.2 million acres of BLM wilderness, 90percent of which has been added since 1987 (Table 111.6). The BLM has also recommended that 336 wilder-ness study areas comprising 9.5 million acres be added to the NWPS (U.S. GAO 1993).

Table 111.6: Increase in Designated Area, 1987-1995 and Current Area, 1995, of National WildernessPreservation System by Federal Agency and Region

Agency Region (1000 acres)

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast’ U.S. TotalIncrease Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current

USDA ForestService 40.5 1,307.2 78.4 692.2 1,273.3 17,890.l 830.9 14,780.3 2,223.l 34,669.8National ParkService 0 133.4 1 5 . 0 1,462.8 0 693.2 $606.2 40,718.O 5,621.2 43,007.4Fish & WildlifeService 0 63.5 0 470.2 1,343.4 1,464.8 9.0 18,686.8 1,352.4 20,685.3Bureau of LandManagement 0 0 0 0 1,178.6 1,626.0 3,573.5 3,601.O 4,752.l $227.0All Agencies 40.5 1,504.l 9 3 . 4 2,625.2 3,795.3 21,674.l 10,019.6 77,786.l 13,948.8 103,589.S

‘Alaska accounts for 57.4 million of the Pacific Coast’s 77.8 million acres. Agency breakdown is: FS, 5.7million; NPS, 33.0 million; FWS, 18.7 million.

Source: NWPS Unit Database, BLM Washington Office, Wilderness Staff. July 1995.


Figure 111.3: National Wilderness Preservation System Acreage by State, 1995

Under 50,000Over I million

50,000-l million

Source: NWPS Unit database. BLM Washington Office. Wilderness Staff. July 1995.

Other changes to the NWPS since 1987 are noted in Table 111.6. Nearly 14 million acres have beenadded, an increase of about 16 percent. l7 The NPS and the BLM accounted for 10.4 of the 14 million addedacres. About 7.5 million acres of these additions came in the 1994 California Desert Protection Act. Two otheryears, 1988 and 1990, also saw substantial additions to the system. In 1988, 1.8 million acres of NPS and FSland were designated, most of it in large parcels in the Mount Ranier, Olympic, and North Cascades NationalParks. About 2.8 million acres of FS, BLM, and FWS land were added to the NWPS in 1990. Since 1987, eachof the four land-managing agencies has increased its Wilderness acreage by more than 1 million acres. Onlyabout 134,000 acres, one percent of the additions since 1987, occurred in the two Eastern regions (Figure111.4).

Figure 111.4: Growth in National Wilderness Preservation System Acreage by State, 1987-1995

No change100-1.000 k ver I million

Source: NWPS Unit database. BLM Washington Otlice, Wilderness Staff. July 1995..

“According to David Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors, there is concern among some outdoor recreation outfitters thatrecent changes in federal policy have given individual agency managers of Wilderness areas too much autonomy to the extent some areunfairly restricting access to organized outfitters and their expeditions.


National Recreation AreasNational Recreation Areas (NRA) are not a legislatively defined system. Nevertheless, they are very

important special federal areas for outdoor recreation. The NRAs are diverse, but their unifying characteristicis that they “warrant management which is clearly diyferent from the general thrust of the National Park orNational Forest Systems” (Shands, 1990). The NPS focus on preservation and the FS and BLM policies ofmultiple-use are de-emphasized in NRAs to allow more intensive management for recreation. NRAs are theonly category of NPS units, or of specially designated FS and BLM areas, with the word “recreation” in theirtitle.

Most NRAs are primarily water-based. Lake Mead was designated as the first NRA in 1936, followed byCoulee Dam in 1946, and Glen Canyon in 1958. In 1963 the Recreation Advisory Council of the Bureau ofOutdoor Recreation wrote executive branch guidelines describing the selection, establishment, and adminis-tration of NRAs. Two of the guidelines were that NRAs be located within easy driving distance of large popula-tions and be able to accommodate large numbers of people. Eleven NRAs were established during the 1960s.Starting in 1972, Congress authorized the first urban NRA gateway in New York City. Four more urban NRAswere designated during the 1970s in the Cleveland, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Los Angeles metropolitanareas.

Most of the urban NRAs provide public access to water or, in the case of Los Angeles, water and moun-tains. Urban NRAs tend to be a mixture of public and private land managed under a federal umbrella by meansof easements, land-use controls, and access agreements, For example, the Chattahoochee River NRA in At-lanta is actually 14 separate parks along a 48-mile stretch of river. A 1988 symposium on NRAs sponsored bythe NPS and FS suggested this arrangement as a model for future NRAs (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Thissuggestion appears to have been borne out in the Boston Harbor Islands NRA, designated in 1996. This NRAconsists of 31 islands totaling about 1,200 acres, none federally owned. The islands are owned by eight sepa-rate entities, and the entire system is to be coordinated under NPS’ management. The 13-member BostonHarbor Islands Partnership will include representatives of the NPS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and various state,local, and private agencies. In addition, an even broader-based advisory council will help set managementdirection and policy (Poole, 1997).

There are 38 NRAs nationwide, 17 managed by the FS, 19 managed by the NPS, one managed by theBLM, and one (Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity NRA in California) managed jointly by the NPS and FS. Together,these areas make up over 7.0 million acres of federal land (Table 111.7). An additional half-million acres withinthe NRAs are not federally owned, but much of it is open for public use through agreements with landowners.Most NRAs are located in the western United States. The NPS manages just under half of all NRA acres, mostlocated within the Lake Mead and Glen Canyon NRAs in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. The only area managedby the BLM is the largely undeveloped one-million-acre White Mountains NRA in Alaska.

Table 111.7: Increase in Acreage, 1987-1995 and current acreage, 1995, of Federal Land in NationalRecreation Areas by Agency and Region

Agency Region (1000 acres)

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. TotalIncrease Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current

USDA ForestService 13.0 129.7 49.0 167.6 312.7 1,464.3 305.2 918.3 679.9 2,679.8

National ParkService 2.1 96.3 0 116.4 0 2,773.2 0 366.7 2.1 3,352.7

Bureau of LandManagement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l,ooo.o 0 l,ooo.o

All Agencies 15.1 226.0 49.0 284.0 312.7 4,237.5 305.2 2,285.0 682.0 7,032.S

Source: Land Areas of the National Forest System. As of September 1995.National Park Service Statistical Abstract. 1995.


Since 1987, about 682,000 acres have been newly designated as NRAs, about an 11 percent increase(Table 111.7). All but 2,100 of these acres are managed by the FS. The only new NRA managed by the NPS is theGauley River NRA in West Virginia. New FS NRAs include Winding Stair Mountain (Oklahoma), Grand Island(Michigan), Smith River (California), Ed Jenkins [Georgia), and Spring Mountain (Nevada). Smith River andSpring Mountain are each larger than 300,000 acres and together make up most of the new NRA acreage since1987.

Wisconsin’s 1 .OOO-mile IceAge National Scenic Trailwinds through terminalmoraine left by the greatW i s c o n s i n G l a c i e r ower10,000 years ago. Pine treesshroud this section of the traillocated in the ChequamegmNational Forest. Photocourtesy of Ice Age Park &Trail Foundation.

National Trails System (NTS)The National Trails System Act was passed by Congress in 1968 to assist the Appalachian Trail and to

establish a national system of trails. Most trails on federal land are not officially a part of the NTS.‘* However,trails in the NTS represent significant and special outdoor recreation resources. Three different types ofNational Trails make up the NTS.19 Nutionu! Historic Truils help to preserve the nation’s heritage by tellingthe story of exploration, migration, and military action in the United States. Designation of these trails is asmuch for symbolism as for the limited protection provided for in the Trails Act. National historic trails gener-ally consist of remnant sites and trail segments. They are not continuous paths in the traditional sense. Thepurpose is to preserve the integrity of significant travel corridors and routes in U.S. history. Of course, histori-cal and cultural interpretation are central to these trail routes. Many related facilities typically surround thehistoric trails, including visitor centers, walking trails, and water resources.

In 1997 there were 12 designated national historic trails, all but two managed by the NPS. The brochureNutionul Truils System Mup und Guide, published by the NPS, provides a summary of each trail, its history,and the attractions found along the trail route. Of the 12 trails, four have been authorized since 1990: JuanBautista de Anza (1990), California (1992), Pony Express (1992), and Selma-to-Montgomery (1996).

Nutionul Scenic TruiZs (NST) provided the impetus for creating the NTS. These trails preserve out-standing recreation opportunities along nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural corridors.As the name implies, the emphasis is on scenery. Three of the trails follow the ridges of the major U.S.

“Unfortunately, an accurate inventory of all federal trails is nearly impossible. In fact, most federal agencies struggle to keep their owninformation centralized and current. Certainly, individual management units such as FS districts or NPS units know what exists withintheir management areas, but coordinating and updating all of the information into a single Federal trails database has proven to beexceedingly difficult.

“This does not include connecting or side trails which are included in the legislation as eligible to be included in the system. Theirpurpose is to provide access to the three main designated trail types. National Historic Trails were not added to the system untilseparate legislation was passed in 1978.


mountain ranges. The great length of the NSTs is another important quality, making the trails accessible tomillions of people throughout the country. There are currently eight NSTs, three administered by the FS andfive by the NPS. Forest Service NSTs include the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest. National ParkService NSTs are the Appalachian, Ice Age, Natchez Trace, North Country, and Potomac Heritage.

Only the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest Trail are continuous footpaths. The Appalachian Trailtotals 2,157 miles, only 44 of which remain unprotected and not publicly owned. Just 30 miles of the PacificCrest’s 2,638 mile length are unprotected. No new NSTs have been designated since 1987, but activity contin-ues on all trails to complete sections and acquire land or easements. For example, a partnership was formedin 1996 between the NPS and the American Hiking Society to strengthen planning and trail developmentefforts along the Potomac Heritage Trail corridor. Although not continuous, the other six trails have longstretches open to public use, including 795 miles on the Continental Divide trail and the 184-mile Chesa-peake and Ohio Canal towpath on the Potomac Heritage Trail. The NTS Map and Guide provides a descriptionof each trail with total miles designated and an approximation of the mileage open for public use.

A significant development in the NTS occurred in 1992 when Congress authorized the secretary of theinterior to study the feasibility of adding the Americun Discovery Lb-ail (ADT). Originally conceived in theearly 1980s by the American Hiking Society and Buckpucker magazine, the trail would serve as an East-Westconnecting link across the United States. The proposed trail would help connect urban and rural areas, in-crease accessibility to the National Trails System in urban areas, and provide for bicycle and equestriantransportation, in addition to foot travel.

One recommendation to Congress is that the National Trails System Act be amended to create a newtrail designation called “National Discovery Trails” (USDI National Park Service, 1996b). This new designa-tion would have the primary purpose of connecting with other trails and would allow the discovery trails to belocated alongside roads to preserve their continuity. The proposed general corridor for the ADT would bemore than 6,350 miles long, extending from the San Francisco Bay area to coastal Delaware (USDI NationalPark Service, 1996~). The trail would split into Northern and Southern legs at Denver and rejoin in Cincin-nati. American Discovery Trail legislation pased the Senate in July, 1998, but was still awaiting action by theHouse of Representatives as of that date.

NutionuZ Recreution lhils (NRT) are by far the most numerous. Their distinction lies in their varietyand proximity to urban areas. The Trails Act also allowed designation of NRTs in relatively remote scenicareas. The secretaries of the interior and agriculture were given authority to designate NRTs without congres-sional approval. Favorable publicity, community benefits, and added protection were three reasons cited bysupporters of the act why resource managers might apply for NRT designation. A recent study of NRTs saidthat it is difficult to assess whether NRT designation has resulted in those intended benefits (Tynon, Chavez,& Harding, 1997).

A total of 821 trails in the United States are currently designated as NRTs, about 65 percent of which arefederally managed. The remaining 3.5 percent are managed by a variety of nonfederal public and privateentities. NRTs include river routes, historic tours, and a cave trail, in addition to traditional footpaths. Someurban multi-use trails and heavily-used nature trails are paved. NRTs can accommodate hiking, bicycling,horseback riding, interpretive use, disabled access, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and motorized water-based uses.

There arc just under 10,000 NRT miles in the United States, fairly evenly distributed nationally (Table111.8). Federal agencies manage over half of the trail mileage with much higher proportions in the West. In theNorth, more than 80 percent of trail miles are managed by nonfederal entities, and in the South the percent-age of nonfederal trails is about 40 percent. Over 1,400 miles have been designated as NRTs since 1987, but179 trail miles dropped their NRT designation for a net increase of 1,229 miles (Table 111.8). More than 70percent of the net gain occurred in the North. Nearly 800 miles were added between 1993 and late 1995,including a lOO-mile trail in Maryland, a 150-mile trail in Washington state, and the 410-mile U.S. Route 6Grand Army of the Republic highway trail in Pennsylvania.


‘Iable III.& Net Increase in Miles, 1987-1995, of National Recreation It-ails by ‘Qpe of Managing Agency and Region

Region

Qpe of Agency North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. TotalIncrease Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Currenl

Federal 20 539 -74 1,479 33 2,021 128 1,546 107 5,585State 740 1,016 37 400 5 84 205 286 987 1,786Local 98 783 0 279 0 192 7 202 105 1,456Other’ 25 706 0 304 0 146 5 6 30 1,162All Agencies 883 3,044 -37 2,462 38 2,443 345 2,040 1,229 9,989

‘Other includes various private corporations and foundations as well as non-profit and other semi-publicorganizations and associations.

Source: Register of National Recreation Trails. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. January1993. Also, Update of National Recreation Trails Designated by the Secretary of the Interior. January 1,1993 through October 1, 1995.

Walking and hiking are the dominant allowable uses on NRTs (Table 111.9). More than 90 percent of trailmiles nationwide are suitable for foot travel. The next largest category is horseback riding, which are permit-ted by 37.5 percent of NRTs. The two Western regions, which are dominated by rural and federal trails, allowconsiderably more horse use than the more urban Eastern trails. Five times as many miles in the North aredesignated for bicycle use as in any other region. Only the South has disabled access on more than 10 percentof trail miles. Surprisingly, the South has no NRT miles suitable for motorized use. Interpretive trail uses arevery modest in all regions, but they are most common in the North. Winter use trail mileage is most prevalentin the North and Rocky Mountain Regions.

‘Ibble III.9: Total Miles and Percentage of National Recreation ‘IYaiIs by Qpe of ‘IXl Use Allowed and Region, 1993l

Type of use allowed2 Region

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. TotalFoot 2,419 (96.3) 2,218 (88.1) 2,213 (90.7) 1,753 (91.8) 8,603 (91.7)Bicycling 1,356 (54.0) 199 (7.9) 219 (9.0) 207 (10.9) 1,981 (21.1)Access for disabled 171 (6.8) 273 (10.8) 105 (4.3) 82 (4.3) 631 (6.7)Horseback riding 508 (20.2) 259 (10.3) 1,548 (63.5) 1,200 (62.9) 3,515 (37.5)Interpretive 126 (5.0) 10 (0.4) 24 (1.05) 37 (1.9) 197 (2.1)Motorized 576 (22.9) 0 (0.0) 641 (26.3) 526 (27.6) 1,743 (18.6)Water-based 205 (8.1) 291 (11.6) 27 (1.1) 156 (8.2) 679 (7.2)Snowmobiling 798 (31.7) 34 (1.3) 550 (22.5) 141 (7.4) 1,523 (16.2)Cross-country skiing 888 (35.3) 38 (1.5) 608 (24.9) 281 (14.7) 1,815 (19.4)

‘Trail miles are not additive across uses due to multiple uses allowed on most trails. Table does not include14 new trails designated since 1993 because use information was not available. Percentages are based onregional and national trail miles with known allowable uses: North, 2,512; South, 2,518; Rocky Mountains,2,439; Pacific Coast, 1910; U.S. Total, 9,378.

‘One trail, the 1.2 mile Horsethief Cave Trail in Wyoming, is designated for underground use.

Source: Register of National Recreation Trails. Washington, D.C. Department of the Interior. January 1993.


National Wild and Scenic RiversThe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed in Congress on the same day in 1968 as the National Trails

System Act. The former act states that certain selected rivers of the United States,

which with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for thebenefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The act has helped preserve the availability of whitewater recreation resources in many parts of the country.Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments are classified into one of three types:

(1) wild-free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail; shorelines essentially primi-tive; represent “vestiges of primitive America.”

(2) scenic-free of impoundments; shorelines largely primitive and undeveloped, but accessible in placesby roads.

(3) recreutional-readily accessible by road or railroad; may have some development along shorelines;may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Several rivers in the system have more than one classification type. One WSR may also be managed bymore than one agency or managing body. As of November 1996, the WSR system consisted of 1.54 riversegments totaling 10,816 miles (Table 111.10). Thirty-seven states throughout the United States have WSRmileage (Figure 111.5). Five rivers form the borders between states-St. Croix (MN and WI), Snake (ID andOR), Missouri (NE and SD), Upper Delaware (NY and PA), Middle Delaware (NJ and PA), and Chattooga (SCand GA). The Western regions of the country contain more than 75 percent of the WSR system mileage.Alaska accounts for about 30 percent of the system, followed by California with 17 percent, and Oregon with16 percent. Together, mileage within these three states comprises almost two-thirds of the WSR system.

Table 111.10: Increase in Miles of Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River Systemby Agency and Region, 1987-1996

Agency Region

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. TotalIncrease Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Current Increase Cur-r-en

USDA ForestService 687 820 276 377 55 961 939 2,189 1,957 4,347National ParkService 200 561 0 237 143 214 0 1,434 343 2,446Fish & WildlifeService 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,043 0 1,043Bureau of LandManagement 0 0 0 0 34 227 621 1,806 655 2,033State Agencies 146 391 11 45 0 0 0 442 157 878Other’ 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 65 5 70All Agencies 1,033 1,772 292 664 232 1,402 1,560, 6,979 3,117 10,817-.

‘Other includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1 river segment) and the Hoopa Valley and Round ValleyIndian Reservations in California (3 river segments).

Source: River Mileage Classifications For Components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.National Park Service, Division of Park Planning and Special Studies. November 1996.


Figure 111.5: Miles of National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State, 1996

0 U n d e r 50 M 5 0 - 2 0 0 mover 2 0 0

Source: Nat iona l Park Serv ice . D iv is ion of Park P lanning and Specia l S tudies . R iver mi leageclassifications for components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. November 1996.

More WSR miles are managed by the FS (40 percent of the system total) than any other agency. Next isthe NPS with 23 percent and BLM with 19 percent. The FWS, state agencies, the CE, and two Indian tribesalso manage WSRs. The system has grown an impressive 40 percent since 1987 (Table 111.10). Just under halfof this growth was in Oregon. Other states with significant growth since 1987 include Michigan, Arkansas,Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (Figure 111.6).

Figure 111.6: Miles of National Wild and Scenic Rivers Added Between 1987 and 1996, by State

Y0 No chanQe w t-100 m O v e r 1 0 0

Source: Nat iona l Park Serv ice . D iv is ion of Park P lanning and Specia l S tudies . R iver mi leageclassifications for components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. November 1996

Just under half (48 percent) of the WSRs are classified as wild, followed by recreutionul (30 percent)and scenic rivers (22 percent). Because of Alaska, the large majority of wild rivers (80 percent) are in thePacific Coast region. Scenic rivers, on the other hand, are nearly as common in the North as in the PacificCoast. The North has 872 miles of scenic rivers compared to the Pacific Coast’s 882 miles. All regions but theSouth have substantial mileage of recreational rivers. The Rocky Mountain region has two and one-half timesas much recreational river mileage as scenic. The North has about 150 more scenic river miles than recre-ational. Just over half of the South’s WSR miles are classified as scenic. The FS manages the majority of scenicand recreational WSR miles, but wild river miles are split fairly evenly among the four federal agencies, withthe NPS managing 130 more miles (1,532) than the FS (1,402).

In addition to WSRs, fast-moving rivers in general are highly valued for recreation experiences. Activi-ties usually focus on rafting, kayaking, and canoeing on whitewater rivers. Whitewater recreation has a de-


voted following and supports a large outfitter and guide industry. The American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA),a conservation group based in suburban Washington, D.C., maintains a Nationwide Whitewuter Znaentoryand serves as an advocate for whitewater resources. A principal reason for their database is to provide infor-mation about whitewater resources to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which relicenses hydro-electric power plants.

In January 1997, the inventory listed 2,297 whitewater river segments totaling almost 31,000 miles(Table 111.11). The database covers all eligible whitewater rivers, regardless of managing agency or organiza-tion. A single river may be comprised of many segments, and the inventory does not include rivers of class Idifficulty (the ‘easiest’ of six levels in the International Scale of Difficulty). Class I river segments are excludedbecause they are often indistinguishable from flatwater. AWA has compiled a database of all rivers class II andabove, but cautions that included river mileage does not specify the quality of the whitewater recreationexperience. A continuous stretch of river with the desired level of difficulty is necessary for a good whitewaterexperience. But overall quality reflects many variables, including the reliability of flows, water quality, scenicfeatures, boating seasons, and proximity to population.

Table 111.11: Miles of Rivers Identified by Nationwide Whitewater Inventory Miles by Level ofDifficulty and Region, 1996

Level of Difficulty

North

Region

South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Class I-III 6,077 4,961 4,387 1,978 17,403Class IV-VI 318 132 980 1,412 2,842Variety’ 3,215 1,625 3,798 1,744 10,382All Segments? 9,610 6,718 9,165 5,134 30,627

‘This category represents segments with a variety of difficulty levels such that they could not be classified aseither easy (Class I-III) or difficult (Class IV-VI) rivers alone. Difficulty levels based on the WhitewaterInternational Scale of Difficulty.

?32 river segments totaling 372 miles did not have location information.

Source: American Whitewater Affiliation. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Other than the Plains states, parts of the Midwest, the Mississippi Delta region, and Florida, whitewaterrivers are well distributed throughout the United States (Figure 111.7). The North and Rocky Mountain regionsboth have more than 9,000 miles. The majority of the river mileage in the inventory (about 57 percent) mightbe classified as “easier” (class I-III) in level of difficulty. The “most difficult” river segments (class IV-VI) areconcentrated in the West where there are greater elevations (Figure 111.8). There are relatively few of thehigher difficulty classes in the South, less than half the mileage in the North. Nationwide, the most difficultclasses of river mileage accounts for less than 10 percent of all whitewater miles. The third category in TableIII.15 shows the mileage of river segments that have a variety of difficulty classes. The Rocky Mountain regionhas the most miles of these rivers followed by the North. It is difficult to categorize these as either easier ormore difficult because a single river segment may range from class I to class VI. That much range is rare, buta lot of these segments can range across two or three classes from I to V, so one might argue that theserepresent “intermediate” whitewater.


Figure 111.7: Counties with Whitewater Rivers, All Difficulty Classes, 1997

Source: American Whitewater Affiliation, Nationwide Whitewater Inventory, 1997.

Figure 111.8: Counties with Whitewater Rivers, Difficulty Classes IV-VI Only, 1997

Source: American Whitewoter Atliliation. Nationwide Whitewater Inventory, 1997.

Camping Facilities on Public Land

(By Douglas McEwen, Professor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL)

In the American consciousness, camping is strongly associated with the great outdoors and the tradi-tion of providing public places for camping is firmly established. Because of its status as a favorite tradition,the provision of public camping facilities is examined in detail here. Although it was not possible to separateout the supply of public campgrounds by government provider, it is appropriate that camping is covered in thefederal section because of the historical importance of the federal agencies in providing camping opportuni-ties to the public. Private camping facilities are covered later in the chapter.

Camping can probably be traced back to the early 1800s when Americans began to discover wildernessas a source of scenic beauty and spiritual inspiration. Camping was certainly an early recreation activity innational parks and national forests. The first campgrounds were probably unplanned and visitor-established.However, as visitor numbers grew and impacts increased, public agencies responded by constructing perma-nent campgrounds (Ibrahim & Cordes, 1993). While records of these early campgrounds are difficult to find,it is safe to state that since the early 1900s there has been a steady expansion of public campgrounds, both atthe state and federal levels.


The Woodall Publishing Company has collected information from all public agencies on their camp-grounds, and it was selected as the most accurate source available.?O While public agencies certainly musthave records of the numbers of campgrounds operated, these records are not unified in any single source andare very difficult to assemble.

In 1996, Woodall’s inventory listed a total of more than 4,000 public (government) campgrounds in theUnited States (Table 111.12). Despite much more federal land in the Western United States, the two Easternregions have 61 percent of the nation’s public campgrounds (Figure 111.9), up from 55 percent in 1977. Localand especially state governments are responsible for the majority of eastern public campgrounds. The totalnumber of public campgrounds in the United States has fallen by about 12 percent in the past 20 years. Thisdrop, however, occurred primarily between 1977 and 1987. There was a modest net gain in public camp-grounds between 1987 and 1996.

Table 111.12: Number of Public Campgrounds and Campsites by Year and Region’

Type of Site and Year

Nor th

Region


Campgrounds1977 1,561 1,014 1,264 829 4,6681987 1,450 993 801 751 3,9951996 1,409 1,064 826 792 4,091

Campsites1977 - 137,268 63,377 54,081 56,488 311,2141987 157,190 83,229 58,220 65,011 363,6501996 149,722 89,636 65,870 65,708 370,936

‘Public campgrounds and campsites are those provided by Federal, State, and local levels of government.

Source: Woodall Publishing Company campground inventory database. Lake Forest, Illinois.

All regions except the North experienced a decline in public campgrounds between 1977 and 1987 thenregained some by 1996. In the North, the net loss of public campgrounds continued into the 1990s. Overall,only the South has shown a net increase in campgrounds since 1977. The Rocky Mountains lost public camp-grounds at the dramatic rate of 35 percent between 1977 and 1996. This probably reflects the closure of manyscattered, remote federal campgrounds that were costly to maintain and operate. Though such closures havebeen occurring nationwide, they appear to be greatest in the Rocky Mountain region. Whether this action willimpact the overall trend in the public sector to a large degree remains to be seen.

2oWoodall’s does not distinguish among public campgrounds provided by federal, state, and local governments, so this section coverspublic campgrounds in general, not just federal campgrounds.

Outdoor Recreation Resources 9 1

Figure 111.9: Percentage of Public Campgrounds by Region, 1996

Rocky Mountains 20.2%

Source: Woodall Publishing Company. Lake Forest. IL.

The public sector has experienced a gain of almost 60,000 campsites (individual units within a camp-ground) since 1977, a 19 percent increase (Table 111.12). The number or campsites increased fastest in thefirst de_cade and only slightly between 1987 and 1996. It would be reasonable to expect that the new camp-grounds added in the past decade are large with a great number of campsites. Just over 64 percent of thecampsites are in the North and South, compared to 60 percent of the campgrounds (Figure 111.10). All fourregions experienced net gains in campsites over the 20 year period since 1977. The fastest growing was theSouth at 41 percent. The Rocky Mountains also added campsites at a rate above 22 percent. The Pacific Coastgrew moderately (16 percent) and the North added only 9 percent more campsites during the 20-year period.Between 1987 and 1966 the North dropped over 7,000 campsites, the only region to register a loss during thatperiod. Comparing the overall trend of decreasing numbers of campground with increasing numbers of camp-sites from 1977 to 1966 indicates current public campgrounds are larger on the average than in the past.

Figure 111.10: Percentage of Public Campsites by Region,‘1996

Rocky Mountains 17.8%

Source: Woodall Publishing Company. Lake Forest. IL.

92 Outdoor Recreafion in American Life

The public sector, with fewer overall numbers of campsites than the private sector, continues to expandsteadily the variety of campsites it provides. Woodall Publishing Company classifies campsites as (1) fullhookup with water, sewer, and electricity; (2) water and electricity; (3) electricity only; and (4) no hookups.Between 1977 and 1996, more than 9,300 full hookup sites were added, an 87-percent increase (Table 111.13).During the same period, electricity-only campsites experienced a similar growth pattern, an 86-percent in-crease. From 1977 to 1996, the public sector almost tripled its capacity of improved sites, adding more than40,000 water and electric sites. On the other hand, the number of no hookup campsites in the public sectorcontinued to steadily decline. The decline was less dramatic than experienced in the private sector andprobably reflects the closing of some small, marginal campgrounds as well as conversion to improved sites.The public agencies appear to be moving away from rustic campgrounds to more full-service facilities, but thistrend is not as dramatic as in the private sector, and the overall number of campsites is much smaller.

Table 111.13: Number of Campsites at Public Campgrounds by ‘Qpe and Year, 1977-1996l

Campsite type Year

1977 19872 1996Full hookups 10,651 16,356 19,975Water & electric 22,755 51,060 65,357Electric only 40,528 71,165 75,279No hookups 237,280 223,647 210,480All campsite types 311,214 362,228 371,091

‘Public campgrounds and campsites are those provided by federal, state, and local levels of government.

‘Woodall Publishing Company’s 1987 data on campsite types do not match exactly the total number of U.S.campsites in 1987 as shown in Table 111.16.

Source: Woodall Publishing Company. Lake Forest, IL.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES

A significant trend to emerge, especially in the 199Os, is the abundance of partnerships among thefederal, state, and local levels of government, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, and the privatesector. Recreation and natural resource managers speak frequently about the advantages of “leveraged” re-sources, shared advocacy, common interests, and larger constituencies. Partnerships may even be a necessityto bring together a diverse group of individuals and institutions which all share an interest in a given resource.Partnerships no doubt have disadvantages too, but their success and prevalence throughout the outdoorrecreation community indicate that the benefits mostly outweigh the costs.

A detailed review of recreation partnerships is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, in two ar-eas-scenic Byways and Watchable Wildlife programs-partnerships have emerged as major trends in out-door recreation. Both “Scenic Byways” and “Watchable Wildlife” are umbrella terms developed over the pastdecade in response to demand for scenic driving and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. Each is character-ized by partnerships involving all levels of government, non-profit organizations, and the commercial sector.Leadership for both is provided by the federal government. Both Scenic Byways and Watchable Wildlife pro-grams depend on the involvement of numerous partners, as described in the following sections.

Scenic Byways

(By Joan W. Tannen, program manager, National Scenic Byways Clearinghouse, Washington, D.C.)

Scenic Byways address the demand for two of the nation’s most popular recreational activities, sightseeingand driving for pleasure. Although parkways and other scenic drives have been around in the U.S. for decades,


it is only since the late 1980s that formally established Scenic Byway programs proliferated at federal andstate government levels. Local and regional governments and the private and non-profit sectors are involvedin many scenic byway partnerships as well. The establishment of Scenic Byway programs represents a veryimportant trend in the supply of outdoor recreation opportunities in this country, serving the dual purpose ofproviding access to desirable areas and providing viewing opportunities.

Sightseeing and driving for pleasure have proven to be two of the most popular leisure activities innational surveys and polls, including the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Repeatedly, Ameri-cans say they enjoy experiencing the nation’s beauty and heritage by driving along its scenic roads. Eventhough some might argue that roads and highways have been in place for years and that nothing has reallychanged with respect to outdoor recreation, the simple fact that transportation routes are being recognizedfor their scenic and recreational values is significant enough. State and federal recognition and promotion ofscenic transportation corridors increases the supply of scenic driving opportunities, even with actions assimple as signage, interpretation, and information dissemination.

A scenic byway is a roadway corridor recognized for its outstanding intrinsic qualities. As the nameimplies, these byways usually have exceptional scenic attributes. However, scenery is not the only recognizedquality. These corridors may also be recognized for outstanding historic, cultural, natural, archaeological, orrecreational qualities. Scenic byways may wander through quiet rural countrysides or traverse urban areas.They may be spectacular destinations which attract domestic and international visitors, or little-known localroutes valued by local communities for weekend driving. They may be called by different names, e.g., scenicor historic byways, rustic roads, back country byways, heritage corridors or all-American roads. Each has incommon special or unique features which are, to different degrees, protected and promoted so that they canbe appreciated and shared.

A scenic byway roadway corridor is more than the road and its right-of-way. It includes the bywaycorridor along with corresponding resources that make the byway unique. Scenic byways may take in lakes,mountains, pastoral scenery, cultural or historical features, unique geological formations, or striking vistasthat both attract and provide enjoyment for the traveler. Accommodations for picnicking, hiking, camping,and other recreation activities may be available along the route itself or the route may provide a pleasantaccess to areas offering these activities. Complementary facilities such as rest stops, scenic overlooks, visitorcenters, and bicycle and pedestrian trails may further enhance the experience.

Background and His toryDriving for pleasure has been a popular form of recreation for as long as Americans have driven automo-

biles. The first fragmented scenic byway efforts began in the early 1900s when Americans began relying onmotorized transportation. The Bronx River Parkway, built in Westchester County, New York in 1913, is con-sidered to be the first scenic road designed to enhance the drive for travelers (Federal Highway Administra-tion, 1988). This model for future parkways demonstrated new engineering concepts and was beautifullylandscaped. The design elements used in constructing the Bronx River Parkway served as a precedent forother scenic parkways and byways that followed, including Virginia’s Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, com-pleted in 1932. These parkways were special because they were designed to be driven at moderate speeds toallow travelers to enjoy the scenery and the driving experience.

Some states were also beginning related scenic byway efforts during the 1930s. Scenic preservation inVermont began in 1937 when the legislature mandated that a scenic route (SR 100) be developed from theMassachusetts border through Vermont to the Canadian border. Oregon’s Columbia River Highway in theColumbia River Gorge, built between 1913 and 1922, was constructed to complement the surrounding envi-ronment and provide spectacular views of the gorge. Oregon also initiated efforts to protect scenic features ofthe state with legislation to protect standing timber and to plant trees along state highways. These efforts inOregon resulted in a new policy for the Bureau of Public Roads (the precursor to the Federal Highway Admin-istration). Beginning in 1934, each state was required to spend at least one percent of its total federal-aidfunding for appropriate roadside landscaping (FHWA, 1988).

Construction on many of the National Park Service parkways, including the Blue Ridge Parkway inVirginia and North Carolina, and the Natchez Trace in Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, began during the1930s. During these Depression years, the National Industrial Recovery Act authorized funding for the con-struction of public highways and parkways to stimulate the economy. The Blue Ridge Parkway was approvedas one of these relief projects in 1929. Private contractors and local labor, as well as Civilian ConservationCorps and Emergency Relief Administration crews, participated in the first segments of this multi-milliondollar construction project (Jolley, 1969). Similarly, many other scenic roads were built during this era.


In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) in re-sponse to the nation’s growing demand for outdoor recreation. ORRRC was charged with determining whatfacilities, including Scenic Byways and parkways, could best meet demand. In 1962, the results concludedthat driving for pleasure and walking were by far the most popular forms of outdoor recreation (FHWA, 1988).With mobility and leisure time increasing, the commission forecasted that more people would travel furtherand more frequently to enjoy the country’s scenic routes.

During the 196Os, a coordinated national scenic byway effort began to evolve. In April, 1964 the Recre-ation Advisory Council of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation issued a policy statement recommending that anational program of scenic roads and parkways be developed. During the same period, Congress enacted theHighway Beautification Act of 1965 to provide for scenic development and beautification of the federal high-way systems. In 1973, Congress directed the Federal Highway Administration to study the feasibility of devel-oping a national scenic highway system, but most scenic byway initiatives were placed on hold during theVietnam and War on Poverty era.

Outdoor recreation and Scenic Byways have always gone hand in hand. The President’s Commission onAmerican Outdoors (1986) stated in its report: “Americans are at home on the road. Pleasure driving to viewthe historic, natural, pastoral qualities offered by many of our nation’s secondary roads is an important part ofrecreation for a majority of our population, comprising some 15 percent of all vehicle miles driven.” Drivingfor pleasure continues to rank very highly among America’s most popular outdoor recreation activities. In1990, congressional appropriation legislation for the department of transportation included the followingprovisions for conducting a national scenic byway study (FHWA, 1991):

. Update a nationwide inventory of existing Scenic Byways.

. Develop guidelines for the establishment of a national scenic byway program, including recommendedtechniques for maintaining and enhancing scenic byway qualities.

. Conduct case studies on the economic impacts of Scenic Byways on travel and tourism.

. Analyze potential safety problems and associated environmental impacts.

Further broad-based support for Scenic Byways was generated as a result of this study. In 1991, Con-gress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The foundations of the NationalScenic Byways Program to be administered by the Federal Highway Administration were outlined in Section1047 of that legislation. Today there are many different scenic byway programs and initiatives across thecountry at all levels-national, state, local and private. These programs were developed to promote and pro-tect roads under the management of a host of government bodies and public-private partnerships. Differentprograms have also been designed to meet a variety of objectives.

Federal ProgramsThe U.S. Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, and Interior are primarily responsible for Scenic

Byway initiatives at the federal level. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the department oftransportation administers the Federal-Aid Highway Program. Roads receiving funds from this program areowned and operated by state and local public agencies. While these systems contain only about 22 percent ofthe nation’s total public road mileage, approximately 79 percent of travel in the United States is on theseroads (FHWA, 1988).

The FHWA manages the National Scenic Byways Program that was mandated in ISTEA. This legislationcharged the secretary of transportation with developing criteria for designating highways having outstandingscenic, historic, recreational, cultural, natural, and/or archaeological qualities as either “national Scenic By-ways” or “all-American roads.” To be designated as a national scenic byway, a road must meet the criteria forat least one of the six intrinsic qualities. The “best of the best” byways are designated as all-American roads.These all-American roads must meet the criteria for multiple intrinsic qualities so exceptional that theseroutes are “destinations unto themselves,” attracting national and international visitors. As of mid-1997, 20highway corridors totaling 2,481 miles had been designated under the National Scenic Byways Program.These six all-American roads, (1,078 miles) and 14 National Scenic Byways (1,403 miles) represent roads thatare also designated within the National Forest Scenic Byways Program, the Bureau of Land Management BackCountry Byways Program, state scenic byway programs, or roads that are under the jurisdiction of the Na-tional Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (FHWA, 1996).

The purpose of the National Scenic Byway Program is to increase tourism, create new jobs and fostereconomic development, while at the same time preserving and protecting the intrinsic qualities of theseroadway corridors. This umbrella program was designed as a voluntary, grass roots initiative to assure com-


munity commitment to designation and management of a byway. The nomination process allows state-desig-nated byways or federal agency byways to be nominated for designation as a national scenic byway or all-American road. The program is purely voluntary. A diverse group of interests have come together to supportnational scenic byway initiatives, including environmental preservationists, tourism advocates, proponentsof recreation, land use planners, historians, transportation specialists, educators, and the motoring public(National Scenic Byways Program, 1995).

ISTEA authorized grant funds for the National Scenic Byways Program totaling $50 million for technicaland financial assistance to the states for the planning, design, and development of state scenic byway pro-grams. The legislation also established an interim Scenic Byways grant program funded at 830 million forfiscal years 1992 through 1994, to allow states a wide range of scenic byway projects while the nationalprogram was being established. A total of 18 states started programs as a result of these federal funds and 11more states took advantage of scenic byway grants to improve and upgrade their existing programs.” NationalScenic Byways Program discretionary grants totaling $74.3 million were awarded to 37 states, including theDistrict of Columbia and Puerto Rico, for 552 projects (FHWA, 1997a).

The USDA Forest Service began its National Forest Scenic Byway Program in 1988 as part of its nationalrecreation strategy. This program was established in direct response to the President’s Commission on Ameri-cans Outdoors findings that listed pleasure driving as the second most popular form of outdoor recreation formost Americans. At that time, scenic stretches of existing national forest roads in 30 states were identified forpotential designation.

There are currently 133 National Forest Scenic Byways in 35 states totaling 7,680 miles (USDA ForestService, 1996). Scenic vistas, and the facilities for enjoying them, are the primary focus. The Forest Servicealso places emphasis on interpretation of heritage and cultural resources, land management practices, in-creased accessibility to Forest Service lands and services, and linking the national forests with neighboringcommunities to provide additional services to travelers. While Forest Service scenic highways are locatedprimarily within the national forests, many also traverse portions of private land. The goals of the ForestService Scenic Byways Program are to (Robertson, 1988):

. Showcase outstanding national forest scenery.

. Demonstrate the national forests as the major federal provider of outdoor recreation in the U.S.

. Increase public awareness and understanding of Forest Service activities.

. Meet the growing demand of driving for pleasure as a significant recreation use.

. Increase the use of the national forests by non-traditional users.

. Contribute to the nation’s overall Scenic Byways effort.

Although the National Park Service (NPS) does not have a formal Scenic Byway program, the roadswithin national parks are treated as Scenic Byways in design, construction and management. There are ninecongressionally designated national parkways including the Blue Ridge parkway in Virginia and North Caro-lina and the George Washington Memorial parkway in Virginia.2’ These elongated parks were designed fordrivers to experience scenic, recreational, or historic features of national significance. Wide rights-of-way andother design techniques are used to protect and enhance scenic views.

Similarly, most roads in national parks are recognized and treated as Scenic Byways. All National ParkService sites encompass unique natural, historic, cultural, and recreational qualities, and the park road sys-tem is the principal mode of access to these qualities. Scenic overlooks, recreation centers, and interpretiveexhibits are abundant on park roads. Many park roads have even been placed on the National Register ofHistoric Places in recognition of their historic value. The Mount Vernon Memorial Highway in Virginia, andthe Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, Montana, are two such examples. The motorized vehicleis the principal mode of transportation in National Parks, therefore the NPS has recognized how critical it is todesign park roads with respect for both the natural resources and the visitor experience.

“Scenic Byway projects can also be funded through the 10 percent set-aside of ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds forenhancement projects.

2ZThe George Washington Memorial Parkway includes a portion in Maryland which is called the Clara Barton Parkway.


The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), also in the department of the interior, in cooperation with theIndian Tribal Councils, is responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of an extensive system ofroads held in trust for tribal units. Many reservation roads have scenic characteristics and offer unique cul-tural features. With land use planning and increased attention to design, these roads have potential as ScenicByways. The BIA recognizes that Scenic Byways have the potential to increase travel and tourism on desig-nated reservation roads and to generate economic development (FHWA, 1991).

Another interior department agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), started its Back CountryByways program in 1989. The objective was to provide visitors with the opportunity to explore some of theBLM’s less accessible unique and scenic lands in the West. As of July 1996,64 back country byways, coveringapproximately 3,180 miles, were designated by the BLM. Back country byways are classified according to theterrain and the type of vehicle required to accommodate the route. Type I is negotiable by a normal passengercar. Type II requires a two-wheel drive vehicle with high ground clearances. Type III requires a four-wheeldrive vehicle. Type IV are single track trails that can accommodate mountain bikes, dirt bikes, snowmobiles,and all-terrain vehicles. Thirty-two of the Back Country Byways are type I, negotiable by a normal passengercar. Ten more have type 1 segments (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1996). The goals of the BLM BackCountry Byway program are to (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1993):

. Increase the opportunities for the American public to see and enjoy unique scenic and historic re-sources on public lands.

. Foster partnerships at the local, state, and national levels.

. Contribute to local and regional economies.

. Enhance the visitor recreation experience and multiple use management message through interpreta-tion.

. Manage visitor use of the byway to minimize environmental impacts and to protect the visitor.

. Contribute to the National Scenic Byway Program in a manner that is appropriate for public landsmanaged by the BLM.

State ProgramsMany states have their own Scenic Byway programs. California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin in particular have a long history of commitment to develop-ment of scenic roads in their states. In some states, such as California and New York, the Scenic Bywayprogram is authorized by legislation and roads are designated in accordance with state-determined standardsand procedures. In other states, such as Colorado and Maryland, the Scenic Byway program has administra-tive authorization under a general or executive authority. Some states, such as Missouri and Illinois, have noformal scenic byway program, but have designated some routes as scenic as part of a special initiative. Forexample, the Great River Road along the Mississippi River travels through some states that do not have ScenicByway programs. It is managed by a commission of representatives from the states through which it passes(Mastran, 1992).

Thirty-five states plus the District of Columbia have formal Scenic Byway programs (Table 111.14). An-other seven States-Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas-are stillin the planning stages. Twenty-six of the 35 programs have been created since 1987 and over half of theprograms (19) since 1992. Nine of the most recent programs were funded or otherwise supported by ISTEA.About half of the programs were created by state legislatures and the rest by executive authority. Thesestatistics highlight the emerging trend of Scenic Byways in the United States, especially in the 1990s.


Table 111.14: Summary of State Scenic Byway Programs, 1996

State Year Created Legislative Authority? Creation Aided by ISTEA?

Alaska 1993 No NoArizona 1982 Yes NoCalifornia 1963 Yes NoColorado 1989 No NoConnecticut 1989 Yes NoDist. of Columbia 1995 n/a’ YesFlorida 1996 Yes YesGeorgia 1992 No NoIdaho 1977 No NoIndiana 1994 No NoIowa 1993 Yes YesKansas 1993 No YesKentucky 1994 No NoLouisiana 1991 Yes NoMaine 1979 Yes NoMaryland 1988 No NoMassachusetts n/a Yes NoMichigan 1993 Yes NoMinnesota 1992 No NoNevada 1980s Yes NoNew Hampshire 1992 Yes NoNew Jersey 1993 No NoNew Mexico 1993 Yes NoNew York 1992 Yes YesNorth Carolina 1990 Yes NoNorth Dakota 1996 No n/aOhio 1994 No YesOregon 1995 No NoRhode Island 1985 Yes n/aSouth Dakota 1990 No n/aUtah 1989 No n/aVermont 1977 & 1996 Yes YesVirginia 1973 Yes n/aWashington 1967 & 1993 Yes n/aWest Virginia 1995 No YesWyoming 1994 No Yes

‘Information was not available.

Source: American Recreation Coalition, National Trust for Historic Preservation and Scenic America. 1996.Key Findings: 1996 Survey of State Scenic Byways Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Recreation Coa-lition.

While there are many similarities between the state programs, there can be differences in the philoso-phies and objectives behind these programs. For example, the California, Oregon, and Vermont programsdesignate routes primarily on the basis of aesthetics and preservation of resources, while tourism consider-ations play a more important role in Texas, Tennessee and Maryland (FHWA, 1996). Comparisons betweenstate programs based on this limited amount of information is cautioned, however. Differences in state pro-gram criteria, objectives, and philosophies greatly affect the number of byways designated as well as thelength of each byway.


Private Sector ProgramsThe American Automobile Association (AAA) has the only private sector scenic byway program that

evaluates routes at a national level. Over the years, AAA received appeals from its members to indicate scenicroads on the AAA maps. AAA’s professional road reporters, who drive the country’s roadways gathering infor-mation for AAA programs, started to evaluate scenic roadways on an ad hoc basis. In the late 1960s and early197Os, information on scenic roads was included for the first time on each map. AAA started to develop aformal scenic byway program in 1979 when they established five categories of scenic routes: natural beauty,cultural interest, quintessential scenery, unique features, and roads designated in a public lands Scenic By-way program. In 1996, AAA had designated 543 byways totaling 27,375 miles (AAA, 1995). Their program isdynamic, with roads continuously being evaluated for designation or redesignation.

Future lkendsInterest in Scenic Byways and all of the scenic byway programs continues to gain momentum. While

scenic byway initiatives have long proven to be popular in the U. S., the initial success of the National ScenicByways Program has had a significant extended effect. Eighteen states started a program through fundingfrom the national program. Several existing state programs have been improved with national program grants.This seems to be a continuing trend, with additional states currently working on the development of scenicbyway programs. Scenic byway grant funds from the National Scenic Byways program have served as seedmonies for 552 scenic byway projects at the state and local levels. When combined with other funding andinitiatives, these projects have worked ‘lo preserve and protect the unique qualities of these special routeswhile simultaneously promoting them for the enjoyment of the byway traveler.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the enabling legislation for the NationalScenic Byways program, comes up for renewal at the end of fiscal year 1997. The administration’s proposednew ISTEA legislation, NEXTEA (National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act), if it passes,would continue with a fairly consistent treatment of the National Scenic Byways program (FHWA, 1997b).The Scenic Byways program is generally considered to be an ISTEA success story (Schoener, 1997).

The USDA Forest Service’s National Forest Scenic Byway program and the BLM’s Back Country Bywaysprogram have increasing interest that is expected to continue. The Forest Service is currently screening todetermine which routes represent the best in their program. Selected byways will be reviewed for potentialnomination to the National Scenic Byway program. The Forest Service also plans to work closely with thestates to have national forest Scenic Byways considered for designation in state programs. Similarly, theBureau of Land Management is currently reviewing BLM back country byways to determine which meet thecriteria for the National Scenic Byways program.

Partnerships between interested groups have been a key to the success of many scenic byway initia-tives. The protection of Scenic Byways as unique national assets have been supported by various governmentauthorities, public and private organizations, and grass roots organizations. These partnerships have createdunified attention to the values and benefits of scenic byway initiatives. While it has taken time for partner-ships to develop, the long-term viability of scenic byway programs will be better protected in the long run. Theincreasing emphasis throughout the U.S. on community values, national pride, environmental protection,historic preservation and overall quality of life should continue to complement scenic byway efforts andinitiatives.

Watchable Wildlife

(By Kimberly H. Anderson, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO)

Numerous national studies, including the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO),have identified wildlife-associated recreation as extremely popular for millions of Americans. The PCAO en-couraged educators to integrate environmental education into basic school curriculums and federal resourceagencies to play a greater role in providing viewing opportunities for people to experience the nation’s wildliferesources.

In response to the PCAO, a report entitled “Watchable Wildlife: A New Initiative,” was published byDefenders of Wildlife in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, andthe USDA Forest Service. This report launched the national Watchable Wildlife effort (Vickerman 1989).23

ZJ“Watchable Wildlife: A New Initiative” is available from Defenders of Wildlife, Portland, OR. (503) 293-1433. 65.00.


The initiative provided a framework for federal and state agencies and private conservation groups to unite anumber of scattered efforts to provide new recreational, conservation, and educational opportunities.

A national memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Watchable Wildlife was prepared and signed bythe major participants in December, 1990. The purpose was to encourage cooperation among diverse agenciesand groups in developing partnerships to establish Watchable Wildlife programs across the country. The MOUoutlined five goals for the Watchable Wildlife program: recreation opportunities, economic development, edu-cational programming, conservation, and partnerships. Partnerships are a critical component to strengthen,diversify, and coordinate the variety of efforts already underway to provide quality viewing opportunities.Original participants included 10 federal agencies, a coalition of state agencies represented by the Interna-tional Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and four conservation groups. The MOU has been amendedtwice, first to extend its life until December 1998, and second to diversify the participation by adding fiveadditional groupsz4 Current participants now include:

American Birding AssociationDefender of WildlifeDucks UnlimitedHumane Society of the United StatesInternational Association of Fish and Wildlife AgenciesNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationThe Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.Wildlife ForeverBureau of Land ManagementBureau of ReclamationDepartment of the Air ForceDepartment of the NavyNational Park ServiceUSDA Forest ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Watchable Wildlife ProgramThe National Watchable Wildlife program is a cooperative coalition of public and private groups working

to meet Americans’ interest in wildlife-associated recreation. Some of the activities which fall under theWatchable Wildlife umbrella include observing fish, viewing flowers, general nature study, butterfly gardens,visitor center interpretive displays, aquariums, and fish hatcheries. Watchable wildlife operates on the premisethat with ample and accessible opportunities to learn about nature, viewers will become more effective advo-cates for wildlife, native plants, and aquatic species conservation. The program is implemented through fed-eral and state agencies and non-governmental entities, working in partnership to develop:

. A network of nature (wildlife. fisheries. and wildflower) viewing sites. Sites are selected based on anumber of criteria such as ability to withstand public use, accessibility, safety, ecological significance,scenic quality, and viewing probability.

. A wildlife viewing site siPninP system. The binocular logo was adopted by the Federal Highway Admin-istration to designate viewing areas. Signs featuring the logo identify the sites and are strategicallyplaced along highways and secondary roads to direct viewers to the sites.2s

‘)The MOU for the National Watchable Wildlife Program underwent revision during 1997.

‘“California provides a good example of an extensive system of clearly identified and signed Watchable Wildlife sites, now found in all ofthe state’s counties. The California Division of Tourism is very involved and supportive of the program and has identified viewing siteswith the binocular logo in their maps.

100

.

.

Outdoor Recreation in American Life

A series of Watchable Wildlife viewing guide books, which include wildlife, wildtlower, and fish viewingsites state to state. To date, 34 state wildlife-viewing guides have been published in partnership with thelead organization, Defenders of Wildlife, publisher Falcon Press, dozens of state fish and wildlife agen-cies, and other national and local partners.Z6

An increase in the general public awareness and sunnort for the conservation of natural resources. Thisis accomplished through environmental education programs that promote sound and safe viewing prac-tices, skills to minimize human impacts, a connection to the land, and a fostering of land and waterstewardship. These experiential outdoor learning opportunities teach visitors about wildlife, fish, wild-flowers, and other natural resources through interpretive signing, guide books, festivals, walks, rangertalks, etc.

Case Study-USDA Forest Service Nature Wa tch ProgramThe Forest Service has been a driving force behind development of the National Watchable Wildlife

program. In 1988, the agency started “Eyes on Wildlife,” its first Watchable Wildlife program which predatedthe MOU by about a year. Later, as nature viewing activities, opportunities, and interest increased across thewide spectrum of watchablc species, a broader scope for the program was desired. In 1994, the Forest Serviceadopted the term “NatureWatch” for its national viewing, education, and conservation program. TheNatureWatch program highlights three areas of outdoor viewing: Eyes on Wildlife (the original emphasis onwildlife), FishWatch (fish and aquatic ecosystems), and Celebrating Wildflowers (native plants and wildflow-ers). In 1996, there were over 840 nature viewing sites on national forests and grasslands and an additional285 sites were identified for development (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Further, the Forest Service had estab-lished 82 sites for fish viewing.

All three components of the NatureWatch program are cooperative between the Forest Service and itspartners. Partners add their perspectives to the diversity of ways to learn about natural resources througheducational activities, viewing blinds, boardwalks, festivals, naturalist trails, interactive displays, computerprograms, brochures, and classes.?’ Some examples of specific NatureWatch programs follow, including part-ner commitments and involvement.

Fish Watching, UtahThe Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forest provided

opportunities for viewing spawning Bonneville cutthroat trout in the spring and Kokanee salmon in the fall inUtah’s Strawberry River, a few footsteps away from the viewing trail. About 500 visitors took part in the springviewing sessions. The fall viewing sessions had over 5,500 take part, including 460 children in guided schoolgroups.

Conasauga River Snorkeling Trail, TennesseeFish watchers snorkel among the 60 colorful and unusual fish species inhabiting the Conasauga State

Scenic River through the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. Redeye bass and sunfish linger in the deeppools. Alabama hogsuckers, stonerollers and darters flash through shallow riffles. Forest staff lead snorkeltours and give slide shows that help people appreciate the Conasauga River as critical habitat for the Conasaugalogperch and other rare and endangered species.

Puget Sound Eyes on WildliJe Partnership Coordinator, WashingtonTwenty-six committed partners contributed to the “Puget Sound Eyes on Wildlife” program. TWO na-

tional forests worked closely with the Pilchuck and Black Hills Audubon Societies, Washington Department of

26 There are now 25 guides in the Falcon Press series, and over 600,000 total units have been sold. Four new guides in the Falcon Pressseries were published in 1996: Alaska, Maine, Nebraska, and Ohio. Four more were published in 1997: New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewYork, and West Virginia. Kansas, Wyoming, and Michigan all recently produced independently published guides, bringing that total tonine.

“An example of the involvement of NatureWatch’s partners is that of the non-governmental organization, Wildlife Forever. WildlifeForever is active in a number of nature viewing activities and is a lead partner with the Forest Service in matching funds for interpretiveNatureWatch signs. They continue to explore different approaches to Watchable Wildlife through radio programs, wildscaping for wild-life, and the production of a 15lesson wildlife curriculum on CD-ROM. “Getting into Golf” with Jack Nicklaus is a program to helpdevelop an appreciation in golfers for the wildlife with which they share the golfing links.


Fish and Wildlife, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Trout Unlimited to support a coordinator whodelivers NatureWatch to Seattle area residents. Projects ranged from an actual 300-pound bald eagle nestexhibit that attracted 4,000 visitors, to printing 10,000 copies of a bird checklist and developing exhibitmaterials for the Boyd Creek Riparian Interpretive Trail.

Taylor Creek Viewing Bridge and Stream Profile Chamber, CaliforniaVisitors are able to view aquatic life without disturbing them or getting wet when they visit an under-

ground stream profile chamber with a 30-foot window into “Life in the Fast Lane.” The salmon viewing bridge,“spawnsored” by the California Tahoe Conservancy and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unity, allowsvisitors to watch spawning salmon without eroding the stream banks, or disturbing the “nesting” fish. Othersights can be seen from the Taylor Creek Meadow Wildlife Viewing Deck including mountain scenery, deer,and osprey, nesting geese, and other mammals. The Kokanee Salmon Education program draws 120,000people yearly, including thousands of school children to learn about stream ecology.

Celebrating Wildflower Events, KentuckyThe Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife and Kentucky Native Plant Society each joined Ken-

tucky state parks and the Daniel Boone National Forest in putting on natural resource weekends at NaturalBridge State Park to promote the enjoyment and education of native plant and herptofauna resources. Theannual Wildflowers Weekend attracted 300 people to kickoff Celebrating Wildflower activities on the forest.The annual herpetology weekend attracted 200 visitors. It was also filmed by the outdoor television showKentucky Afield and aired to more than 80,000 Kentucky viewers. Both programs used slide shows, field trips,examples of plants and animals and a photography workshop.

Raptor Festival, MontanaThe highest number of golden eagles in North America soar over Montana’s Bridger Bowls Ski Area each

October. The Bridger Bowl Ski Corporation, HawkWatch International, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife& Parks, and Wild Birds Unlimited joined with the Bridger National Forest to offer a Raptor Festival, attendedby 2,000 people. Participants hiked to the ridge top to identify eagles and hawks and attended raptor educa-tion workshops. A new raptor display installed at the ski area provides year-round interpretation of the num-ber one golden eagle flyway in the United States.

“People and the Land: Our Siskiyou Heritage, ” OregonThe Siskiyou National Forest and 47 partners sponsored and put on a four-day event titled “People and

the Land: Our Siskiyou Heritage” on the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. Their purpose was to interpret therelationship between the inhabitants of the Siskiyou region and their environment, both historically andcurrently. The booths utilized hands-on exhibits and one on one interaction. Over 5,000 people attended theevent, including 2,500 school children. Partners included the Bureau of Land Management, two colleges, twohistorical societies, National Park Service, Girl Scouts of America, nature organizations, Indian tribes, andothers.

Schoolyard Wild Landscaping, ColoradoThe National Watchable Wildlife Conference, held in Estes Park, Colorado in 1995, inspired the com-

munity, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest staff, and many local partners to work with students and teachersto transform the town’s schoolyard into a wildland garden. High school students constructed’bat houses; firstgraders hung their handmade birdhouses, and a biology class planted a native garden resistant to drought.The Boy Scouts planted fifty new native tree species. Now teachers are able to step with students into anenvironmental education classroom through their back door. The school hopes to designate their school siteas a NatureWatch site with their own binocular logo.

International Migratory Bird Day, ArizonaIn southern Arizona on the Coronado National Forest a fortunate “birder” can find elegant trogons.

Newcomers and expert birders are drawn to Sabino Canyon National Recreation Area for birding tours of thesky island ecosystems, backyard landscaping for birds, trogon research and neotropical migratory bird con-servation. The 1996 International Migratory Bird Day attracted 750 visitors, of which nearly a quarter wereHispanic. Tucson Audubon Society, Arizona Game and Fish Department, a local raptor group, the SabinoCanyon Volunteer Naturalists, and Forest Service staff all participated in the event.


Wildlife Viewing Guide, IllinoisEfforts by a Shawnee National Forest Watchable Wildlife team led to the inclusion of nine forest sites in

the Illinois Wildlife Viewing Guide, published in 1996 in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Naturalresources. These nine sites provide some of the best wildlife viewing opportunities in the state.

Other National Non-Consumptive Wildlife EffortsIn addition to the Forest Service’s NatureWatch and its partners, and the National Watchable Wildlife

Memorandum of Understanding, there are other significant national collaborative efforts toward promotingconservation through viewing. They include:

1. Celebrating WildjlowersThe Native Plant Conservation Initiative is a national consortium of nine federal and nearly 60 non-

federal cooperators focusing on the conservation of the Nation’s native flora. The group promotes publicawareness preserving these natural resources through education, photography, and viewing. They participatein Celebrating Wildflowers Week, the third full week in May, which is the kick off for wildflower events thathappen nearly year round. Events include walks, talks, wildflower festivals, displays, brochures, posters, aCelebrating Wildflower events calendar, and a national Celebrating Wildflowers Hotline number to call forbloom reports between April and August. During Autumn, this telephone number then becomes a hotline forFall Foliage viewing.

2. Fish WatchIn 1996, a session was held at the American Fisheries Society Conference entitled “How to Make Fish

As Popular As Dinosaurs.” Representatives from most federal and state agency groups attended, as did avariety of conservation and business groups. The purpose of the session was to explore ways to engage thepublic in conservation of fisheries and aquatic resources. The approach was education and hands-on eventsfor children to learn about fish biology, aquatic species, ecosystem health, clean water, and watersheds. Path-way to Fishing, Adopt a Watershed, and Future Fisherman’s Foundation are just a few of the national effortsunderway. These groups are committed to the conservation of fisheries and aquatic resources through educa-tional programs, stream profile viewing chambers, over-water platforms, river snorkeling, fish festivals, Franand Francis fish mascots, fish story telling tents, casting clinics, and fish derbies.

3. Partners in FlightPublic and private organizations and businesses are also taking action to help reverse the decline in

many migratory bird populations. Groups involved include Harcourt Brace, Wild Bird Feeding Institute andNational Bird Feeding Society, Phillips 66, Swift, Department of Defense, National Fish and Wildlife Founda-tion, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and others. International Migratory Bird Day iscelebrated each May to help conserve migratory birds and their habitats between Canada, the United States,Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America.

STATE LAND AND WATER RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

State land and water resources are generally somewhere between the mostly resource-oriented oppor-tunities provided by the federal agencies and the facility-oriented opportunities provided by local governmentand the private sector. State-owned recreation resources cover less area than federal resources. They tend tobe somewhat more developed, however, offering more services at locations usually closer to population cen-ters, especially in the eastern United States. On the other hand, State resources are not consistently devel-oped to the degree of most urban and lacal government parks, and many have significant acreages of wildland.In many ways, though, State land and water resources provide their own spectrum of opportunities similar towhat is offered across all levels of government and the private sector. See the accompanying article, “TheState Government Role in Outdoor Recreation” for the perspective of a State outdoor recreation professional.

State-owned outdoor recreation resources are dominated by state parks. A detailed report on the 50state park systems is presented in the next section. A number of other significant state-owned and managedresources, however, also play important roles in outdoor recreation. They include: State trails programs, stateforest systems, State Fish and Wildlife land, State-designated wilderness, and State-designated scenic rivers.State resource systems are difficult to summarize because of variation in resources, policies, and definitions.Management styles for fish and wildlife resources vary considerably. State Forest systems range widely in


scope and funding. The National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD) produces a summary report ofall state park systems. Even this effort suffers from difficulty in controlling data collection over multipleperiods of time. The NASPD presents trend data between 1991 and 1995. But trend data were nearly impos-sible to obtain for forest and fish and game programs.

The State Government Role in Outdoor Recreation

(By James DeLoney, Program Head of Consumer Research, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX)

In the compendium of outdoor recreation providers there are federal, state, and local governments; theprivate commercial sector; the quasi-or non-profit sector; and the individual. Twenty-seven of the most re-cent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPs) available, dated in the late 1980s and199Os, served as the primary sources to develop this article on the State role in providing outdoor recreation.SCORPs document issues, actions, programs, and trends occurring in states, and give insights about thediverse roles state governments play in outdoor recreation and tourism. States have been producing SCORPssince the mid 1960s as a requirement to participate in the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Pro-gram. Several examples are given about the experiences of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as a stategovernment provider of outdoor recreation.

Over time the desires of the populace shape the role of each level of government, including the rolesstate governments play in the provision of outdoor recreation and resource-based tourism. Roles of stategovernment are two-fold: (1) to manage, protect, and conserve the state’s natural and cultural resources; and(2) to provide outdoor recreation, environmental education, and cultural/historical interpretation. To thisend, state agencies:

. Operate and maintain a system of public lands, including state parks and wildlife management areas;

. Monitor, conserve, and enhance the quality of rivers, streams, lakes, public and private lands, coastalmarshes, wetlands, bays, beaches, and Gulf waters;

. Manage and regulate fishing, hunting, and boating opportunities and activities;

. Assist public and private entities in providing quality outdoor recreation opportunities;

. Cooperate with other governmental entities in these areas (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1994).

The most visible role that state governments play in the provision of outdoor recreation and resource-basedtourism is the operation and maintenance of state park systems. Sites comprising state parks systems rangefrom large natural areas to small historical sites. State park systems range in size from less than 10,000 acresto over 3.2 million acres (National Association of State Park Directors, 1996). Generally, state parks fill aniche between the larger, more significant federal national parks and the smaller, more intensely developedlocal parks. Results from surveys of Texas citizens reveals that the public prefers state parks that (a) arelocated outside of cities in a rural natural setting near a freshwater stream or lake; (b) serve as many people aspossible, including tourists; (c) are a place where people can feel secure; (d) are properly maintained beforethe state purchases new park sites; (e) have reasonable entrance fees, but not so high to prohibit access tolower income families. Popular with state park visitors are good, clean restrooms; trails; wilderness or naturalareas; abundant wildlife; and camping and fishing facilities, all presented to them by a friendly, informativepark staff (Goldbloom 1991; DeLoney, Eley, & Dziekan 1996).

A significant role of state governments is the preservation of natural resources sought by recreationistsand tourists, accomplished largely through state parks. State governments also play a significant role in theconservation and management of the state’s wildlife populations. Nature tourism, which is dependent on theconservation of natural and wildlife resources, appears to be an international phenomenondestined for greaterpopularity and economic importance.

State governments regulate many activities which directly or indirectly impact outdoor recreation andtourism. Regulatory functions range from reservoir development, freshwater instream flows, water quality,hunting and fishing for sport and commercial activities, to sand and gravel permits in freshwater streams.These are just a few of the hundreds of licenses and permits controlled by the states.

104 Outdoor Recreation ih American Life

Current !&ends, Issues And Other Forces of Change

Changing PreferencesPublic values drive trends in outdoor recreation participation. An example of a current trend in outdoor

recreation participation is the shift from consumptive (e.g., hunting) to non-consumptive (e.g., bird watch-ing) uses of wildlife. It is often difficult for state governments to provide outdoor recreation opportunities asquickly as changes in outdoor recreation participation occur. The management of state parks and wildlifemanagement areas in Texas illustrate this point. Visitation to Texas state parks exceeds 20 million annually,while visitation to wildlife management areas remains low, even though non-consumptive uses of wildlife inTexas are popular. The reason is that state parks were designed, developed, and staffed to support visitors,while wildlife management areas were managed from a biological perspective to support wildlife rather thanvisitors.

Accordingly, state park managers encouraged visitation while wildlife management area managers con-centrated on wildlife management. Plans are now underway in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department tomake the wildlife areas more accessible to the public. The planning, development, and staffing of an infra-structure at wildlife management areas to support the rapid increase in the non-consumptive uses of wildlifeis a lengthy, expensive process. It will take years before the recreational opportunities on the wildlife manage-ment areas can meet the public demands for non-consumptive wildlife opportunities.

Societal TrendsShifts in values result in state governments having to deal with situations quite different from the past.

One of the most dramatic trends has been in the composition of the American family. State park visitationtends to be a predominantly family-oriented activity. In Texas, the individual least likely to visit a state parkwould be single or a single parent (Goldbloom, 1991). Changing characteristics of the American family presentstate government outdoor recreation and tourism providers with challenges. How can the increasing numbersof “nontraditional” families bc attracted to visit state outdoor recreation and tourism areas? How will stategovernment outdoor recreation providers meet the special needs of such families? For example, the needs ofa mother visiting a state park with children may differ from the needs of a family accompanied by a father.

The urbanization of America is another trend which has affected state-provided outdoor recreationopportunities, most notably hunting. In years past, fathers who lived in rural areas taught their sons to hunt.Today, 70 percent of the U.S. population lives in urbanized areas, and fewer fathers live in the same householdwith their children. Some states, including Texas, are attempting to get women more interested in the out-doors. Since 1993, over 1,500 women in Texas have participated in a workshop titled “BecomingAn OutdoorsWoman” (Dziekan, DeLoney, & Eley, 1997). Whether or not past levels in hunting participation can be sus-tained in view of these societal changes remains to be seen.

Research studies have shown correlations between participation in outdoor recreation activities andthe age and race of the participant. Continuing shifts in the age, race, and family composition of the popula-tion will impact future outdoor recreation participation, particularly at state parks where family visits domi-nate and certain racial groups have been under represented. While the overall participation can be expectedto increase due to the increase in population, increases in non-Caucasian races and the elderly age groupsmay result in declines in statistics such as the proportions of the population participating in outdoor recre-ation activities.

Resource TrendsOf the statewide issues identified in the 27 SCORPs reviewed, resource conservation occurred most

frequently. A common thread among the states was to ensure the conservation of the natural, cultural, andhistorical resources upon which outdoor recreation and tourism depend. This finding may indicate to stategovernment planners and managers the most important role for state park systems, a role supported by publicvalues.

Budgets are another strong driving force influencing changes in the role of state governments in outdoorrecreation and tourism. In the SCORPs, funding for parks and recreation was cited second most often as astatewide issue. National, state, and local funding for parks and recreation fails to keep pace with publicdemand for quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Funding has been a perennial statewide issue for yearsin many states (DeLoney, et al., 1996). The elimination of Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)moneys to states escalated funding problems for state governments. Texas received over $254 million (in1994 dollars) in LWCF moneys from 19651995 (DeLoney, et al., 1996) to fund 923 park projects, 66 of which


were state parks (Urbina, 1997). State and local funds have to make up this shortfall at a time when it seemsunlikely that governments will raise taxes for the purpose. Further, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentno longer receives funds from general revenues to operate state parks, and the department is attempting tobecome self-sufficient at a time when the Texas State Park System faces an estimated $185 million backlog inmaintenance and repairs. These trends require the agency to recover a greater portion of operation andmaintenance costs from user fees at Texas state parks. Other states report similar trends. The perennialfunding issue will continue far into the foreseeable future.

Current Interests, Marketing Initiatives, and DirectionsState governments, like other levels of government, are tasked with meeting growing outdoor recreation

needs without corresponding increases in budgets. State governments are having to rely more and more onmarketing initiatives to meet increasing demands. Since 1991, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department(TPWD) has worked closely with a Texas A&M University marketing professor to revamp its pricing structurefor state parks. Further, the department created its own marketing branch in the agency.

There are two key reasons for state governments’ interest in marketing. First is the need to understandtheir customers from a marketing perspective. Second is the overriding need to improve budget situations tomake visitors incur more of the cost of providing the outdoor recreation opportunities. A public opinionsurvey of visitors to Texas state parks found that 61 percent agreed that “user fees and entrance charges tostate parks should be set high enough to cover a park’s operating cost” (Wall & Crompton, 1995).

Although state governments have started applying marketing concepts used by the private or commer-cial sector, there is room for improvement. For example, state parks are designed and developed as a productusing master planning concepts which do not conform to current marketing principles. Attempts are thenmade to attract visitors, or customers, to the product. Current marketing concepts require customers to beinvolved in determining the product they will be offered (Crompton & Lamb, 1986).

Another marketing initiative taken by state governments is the establishment of 501 (c)(3) foundations.In Texas, donations and sponsorships are channeled through the Texas State Park Foundation. Foundationsgive the state agencies more flexibility, enabling them to accomplish goals which would be either impossibleor difficult for the state agency without the assistance of the foundation. Other initiatives in Texas include theaggressive promotion of state parks, greater emphasis on the TPWD’s public image and relationship with thepublic, and revamping consumer research to address all of the agency’s outdoor recreation and tourism cus-tomers. Other states have implemented similar changes to place greater emphasis on marketing and customerresearch. Other marketing initiatives taken by state governments to improve outdoor recreation opportuni-ties and services include centralized reservation systems for visitors; acceptance of credit cards; packagedtours at state managed sites; outreach to under-represented socio-demographic groups such as minorities andwomen; use of volunteers to supplement full-time staff; and integration of the parks and recreation areas withthe local community rather than administering them as islands in local areas.

State governments are very active in tourism. Some states, such as Arkansas, place state parks andtourism in the same agency. Gunn (1994) divides tourism into three sectors: business, nonprofit, and govern-mental and states that, “Contrary to tourism being an industry or dominated by the business sector, it isdeveloped and managed by another very important sector-government . . ..The governmental sector ownsand manages much of the infrastructure upon which tourism depends”. State governments are rapidly be-coming more aware of the importance of the economic impacts of outdoor recreation and tourism. In Texas,tourism was a $23 billion business in 1993 (State Task Force on Texas Nature Tourism, 1994). Visitors toTexas state parks generate an estimated annual economic impact on local communities of over 8770 million(DeLoney, et al., 1996). State government outdoor recreation providers are working more closely with thetourism industry and other private or commercial businesses who provide products and the infrastructureneeded for people to engage in outdoor recreation and tourism. This cooperative interest is likely to continue.

Future nends, Issues, and Directions of State GovernmentsState governments will face future trends similar to current trends. The trend to run state governments

more like businesses will continue well into the foreseeable future. State governments have one major compli-cating factor, however, in trying to run governmental entities like businesses-political considerations. It isdoubtful whether a governmental entity can operate entirely like a business given political realities. Electedpolitical officials may not support dedicated funds because they lose the flexibility to react to other prioritiesin the budgetary process.


Coupled with the issue of dedicated funds is the problem of employee motivation. For any business toprosper, employees must be motivated. To increase state park revenues, park employees responsible for imple-menting revenue increases must receive benefits from their efforts. They must, for example, see the revenuesthey generate come back to their park or at least to the state park system. State park visitors are morereceptive to higher fees if they see improvements made in the park with the higher fees. If revenues go back tothe general treasury for the elected officials to disburse rather than to the park to improve the quality ofvisitor service, then the quality of service does not improve and the visitors are left dissatisfied.

State governments can expect the quality of the visitor’s experience to become more of an issue in thefuture. As park visitors are charged higher fees, they expect corresponding increases in the quality of serviceand amenities they receive for the higher prices (More, Dustin, & Knopf, 1996). There appears to be a linkbetween high service quality and long-term customer loyalty (Backman & Veldkamp, 1995). LaPage (1995), aformer state parks director, makes the following observation about the quality issue:

The rewards for failing to improve the quality of public use can only be more restrictions, moredeferred maintenance, more loss of heritage, less diversity, and reduced feelings of pride of own-ership. Conversely, a commitment to improving the quality of public use and expanding the public’sresponsibility for its own resources can provide real assurance of park perpetuity.

In the future, the decisions of state government leaders will continue to determine the quality of visitorservices and experiences. Decisions such as staff freezes and reductions, budget reductions, park closures,and the operation of parks for political reasons rather than to meet criteria established by the agency mayhave adverse long-range impacts on the mission and goals of the state agency, particularly the generation ofrevenues from user fees.

Another issue that state governments must address is unfair competition with the private sector. “Mostpublic park systems have a policy of non-competition with the private sector. Public park pricing practices,however,usually undercut those of close substitutes in the private sector. Public park expansion practicesoften continue to disregard the private sector’s unused capacity...” (LaPage, 1995). Recent price increases instate park fees in Texas have brought prices more in line with prices for similar services in the private sector.

State government entities will face another dimension of this issue in the future. While the privatesector challenges state governments to operate more like private business, there is a prevailing sentimentamong some in the private sector that any profitable aspects of the operations should be placed in privatehands. If the profit-generating aspects of an operation are removed, it is unclear how that entity can continueto operate in a businesslike fashion.

States must deal with one trend both currently and in the future. It is unlikely the federal governmentwill support funding state and local parks from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund or urban parkspending (Tice, 1997). From 1965-94, LWCF appropriations pumped $6.1 billion (in 1994 dollars) into stateand local parks (DeLoney, et al., 1996). This issue is at least two-fold: Where will the money come from tomaintain these parks in the future? And how will state and local governments generate sufficient funding overthe next 30 years that will not be forthcoming from federal sources? Compounding this issue is the decayinginfrastructure which increases maintenance costs (DeLoney, et al., 1996).

The interest of outdoor recreationists and tourists in a diversity of activities will continue into thefuture. A continuing increase in foreign tourists will add to the diversity of interests. The challenge to thestates is how to meet such a wide range of interests in recreational activities and continue to provide opportu-nities in established but stable activities, such as fishing. The greatest challenge facing state governments inthe future may be simply the way they do the business of providing outdoor recreation and tourism opportu-nities, particularly the integration of revenue generation and business practices with political realities whileproviding quality visitor experiences. Whoever conducts the business will need to understand outdoor recre-ation, tourism, economics, politics, business and marketing concepts, and possess the ability to apply theseunderstandings to meet outdoor recreation and tourism demands at the state government level. In the futureworld economy, outdoor recreation and tourism will become an even bigger business.


State Park Systems in the United States

(By Daniel D. McLean, Associate Professor, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN)

America’s state parks and associated areas provide close-to-home outdoor recreation opportunities.The majority of U.S. counties have one or more state park system areas-a sharp contrast to federal landwhich is primarily in the West (Figure 111.11). Many counties that are designated as ‘Metropolitan’ or areadjacent to Metropolitan counties contain state park areas (Figure III.12).z8 State park systems provide nearbyrecreation opportunities for metropolitan residents, especially in the Eastern United States where the major-ity of the population is. The 50 state park systems share many similarities, but each also has uniqueness.

This section focuses on the common attributes of state parks in the United States, examining theircurrent status. It also describes trends and their potential impacts. Also covered are the types of areas andfacilities administered within state park systems. In 1924, the first National Conference on State Parks wasconvened by Stephen Mather. Since then, state park directors have met regularly. The NASPD has provided aforum for discussion, as well as a wealth of statistical information about America’s state parks. For the last 20years, the NASPD has sponsored the “Annual Information Exchange” (AIX), which gathers data related todevelopment and progress of state parks. Since 1991, data collection has become more consistent. The mostcurrent data are for the year ending June 30, 1995.

Figure 111.11: Counties with State Parks or Recreation Areas, 1995

‘“Metropolitan designation of U.S. counties was done by the USDA Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, Calvin Beale,Demographer, 1993.

USDA Forest Service. State park database compiled from state DNR literature and br1995.

Source: .ochures.


Figure 111.12: Counties with State Parks or Recreation Areas that Are Either Classified as Metropolitanor Are Adjacent to Metropolitan Counties, 1995

Source: USDA Forest Service. State park database compiled from state DNR liiralure and brochures.1995. County Typology Codes. USDA Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.1993.

Inventory of State Park AreasState park agencies administer a wide variety of areas, eight distinctive and two collective. The catego-

ries of areas include state parks, recreation areas, natural areas, historic areas, environmental educationareas, sci&tific areas, state forests, State Fish and Wildlife areas, other areas, and miscellaneous areas. Defi-nitions established by the NASPD insure better consistency in reporting. The inventory makes it clear thatstate park agencies manage far more than parks.

Trails are a very important recreation resource managed by state park agencies. They are not includedamong the eight system areas, but are treated separately. The 1996 AIX reports 1,353 state trails totaling15,390 miles in the United States. These totals do not include trails in state parks or other agency areas.Almost every state park agency or other state government agency manages a program specifically for trails (insome states, more than one). Program functions go beyond managing state trails to statewide trail planning,technical assistance to local governments and other trail groups, grants administration, and a variety of otherpurposes. State trail programs are covered later in the chapter.

Depending on the legislative mandate of a particular state, most agencies manage a Variety of differenttypes of areas. Eight state park agencies administer state forests, but most states have a separate state forestryagency. In contrast, one state reported having no state parks in both the 1992 and the 1996 AIX reports.However, this same state has almost 42,000 acres administered by its “state park agency.” State legislativebodies which designate the types of areas in a system impact the agency’s ability to report within NASPDpredetermined definitions.

The state park estate is quite large, though it is just a fraction of the size of the federal estate. In 1995,state park agencies reported administering more than 5,500 areas (Table 111.15). About 92 percent of theareas were open and in operation. The North region has more than twice the number of areas as any otherregion, and almost half of the national total. From 1991 to 1995, the total number of areas in the systemincreased by 32 percent, a net gain of 1,267 areas. The number of operating areas increased by 37 percent. Asexpected, state parks represent the largest single type of area administered with one-third of the total units(Table 111.13). Recreation areas, natural areas, historic areas, and “other” areas round out the top five.


Table 111.15: Number and Area of State Park System Areas by ‘@pe of Area and Region, 1995

Qpe of Area

North

Region


Number Area’ Number Area’ Number Area Number Area’ Number Area-

State Parks 1,023 2,144.8 388 858.6 202 804.2 2 3 8 4,018.O 1 , 8 5 1 7,825.6Recreation Areas 115 179.6 124 106.5 135 193.3 395 764.6 769 1,244.0Natural Areas 218 115.5 86 622.9 242 191.5 76 98.2 6 2 2 1,028.lHistoric Areas 184 15.8 168 29.1 101 26.6 94 17.1 547 88.7Environmental

Education Areas 42 88.6 3 4.7 6 5.9 0 0 51 99.2Scientific Areas 89 10.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 10.6Forests 274 770.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 770.1Fish and Wildlife

Areas 45 102.7 1 0.2 423 307.1 0 0 469 410.1Other Areas 205 47.5 32 44.8 49 3.4 203 49.1 489 144.8Miscellaneous

Areas 300 178.2 32 8.5 6 2.1 44 1.6 382 190.4All Areas 2,495 3,653.3 8 3 4 1,675.3 1 , 1 6 4 1,534.l 1 , 0 5 0 4,948.6 5 , 5 4 3 11,811.3

‘Numbers may not sum exactly to totals because of rounding.

Source: National Association of State Park Directors, Annud Informution Exchange, 1996.

State park system areas totaled approximately 11.8 million acres (Table IIIlS). The size of the statepark estate varies considerably by region and by type of area. The Pacific Coast (including Alaska) has over 40percent of the total state park system acreage in the United States. Alaska by itself has more than one-fourthof the U.S. acreage, despite having just 2 percent of the areas. Excluding Alaska, the North region dominatesacreage as it does areas with about 43 percent of the total land area in the other 49 states. State park systemacreage increased by slightly more than 850,000 acres (about 8 percent) between 1991 and 1995. Among thetypes of areas, state parks dominate in acreage, accounting for just under two-thirds of all acres managed(Table 111.15). Recreation areas are a distant second at about 11 percent and natural areas third at about 9percent of the total estate acres. Even though state park agencies administer a variety of areas, their primarybusiness is state parks. Alaska contains an exceptionally large portion of this land. With respect to state parksproper, Alaska’s 2.89 million acres represent 37 percent of the national state park total of 7.83 million acres.Alaska also has almost one-quarter of the nation’s 1.24 million acres of State Recreation Areas.

The Rocky Mountain region has the most natural areas, but the South has the most acreage set aside forthis type of area. Texas and Florida account for more than 430,000 acres of the South’s natural areas. Between1991 and 1995, there was a 60 percent increase in the number of defined natural areas, but only a 7 percentgain in area. Natural areas in the Rocky Mountain region grew at the rate of 166 percent over that period andthe Pacific region reported a 62 percent growth rate. Alaska reported no new natural areas. Colorado reportedan increase in the number of natural areas from 70 to 200, and acreage of natural areas increased 31,000acres. Every region showed some growth in natural areas, but the South reported the slowest growth.

Historic areas are more equally divided among the four regions. The North has the largest number andthe South has the most acreage. Among states, California manages the most historic area acreage, over 13,500acres. Growth in historic areas from 1991 to 1995 has been moderate, a 7 percent increase in areas and a 15percent gain in acreage. Environmental education and scientific areas are almost exclusively in the Northwith 82 percent of the classified education areas and 89 percent of the area. The Rocky Mountains and Southregions also have environmental education areas, but their numbers are very small. All of the scientific areasare in the North. The growth of environmental education and scientific areas was dramatic between 1991 and1995. There were 22 environmental education areas reported in 1991 and 51 areas in 1995. Illinois grewfastest, from none in 1991 to 23 in 1995. Growth of scientific areas was even more dramatic, from five areasin 1991 to 89 in 1995. All of the increase occurred in Iowa, which had no scientific areas in 1991.


State forests present somewhat of an anomaly to the reporting process. Most states have their ownforest resource management administrative units. Eight state park agencies in the North report having someforest management responsibility. The data do not clarify whether separate forest management units arepresent in each state. No other region reports having any units designated as forests in their state park sys-tems. Fish and wildlife areas constitute 3.5 percent of the state park estate area. This category also representsa function administered by a separate agency in most states. The Rocky Mountain region has 90 percent of theareas and 75 percent of the acreage. Kansas accounts for 23 percent of fish and wildlife areas and 68 percentof the acreage. West Virginia and Illinois also have a substantial number and size of fish and wildlife areas.Nationwide, fish and wildlife areas managed by state park agencies increased from just 49 in 1991 to 469 in1996. It is likely that transfers of authority, changes in classification, and varied interpretation of how toreport areas accounts for a major portion of the reported change.

State park system areas identified as “Other” are those not previously identified. They are consideredspecial or significant enough in a particular State to warrant separate identification and treatment. “Other”areas account for approximately 9 percent of national state park system areas, but only about 1 percent ofacreage. The Rocky Mountain Region has considerably fewer acres in the “other” area category than the otherthree regions, each of which manages more than 40,000 of these acres.

“Miscellaneous”areas, those that are not easily categorized or distinguished enough to be classified,total 1.6 percent of the state park estate area and just under 7 percent of the areas. The number of miscella-neous areas increased substantially between 1991 and 1995, but the reported acreage decreased. The data donot provide a clear picture as to why this has occurred. It is probable that miscellaneous areas (which are sortof a catch-all “everything else” category) were added mostly as small tracts of land without easy classificationwhile larger tracts received a formal classification. In some cases, the miscellaneous areas may be used as aholding category while the state park agency determines how to classify them.

Inventory of State Park FacilitiesState park agencies manage a large variety of facilities. The most popular and common types of facilities

are listed in Table 111.16. Campsites are the most common facilities found in the state parks systems. EveryState manages campsites, which number almost 200,000 improved and primitive campsites in 2,910 areasthroughout the United States. Since 1991, the number of improved campsites increased in every region,highest in the Rocky Mountains at 15 percent. The North has more than twice as many improved campsites asany other region and nearly one-half the national total. One interesting trend between 1991 and 1995 is a 3.5percent decline in the number of year-round improved campsites. The greatest loss of year-round improvedcampsites was in the North Region, where 7,500 fewer were reported. However, during the same period sea-sonal improved campsites increased substantially, especially in the North. It seems likely that some year-round improved campsites have been reclassified as seasonal. During the same period, almost all of the im-proved campsites added in the South were year-round.

Both primitive campsites and state park system areas with primitive campsites suffered a net loss be-tween 1991 and 1995. Nationally, there were approximately 2,100 fewer primitive campsites and 290 fewerprimitive camping areas. All of these losses occurred in the South. Excluding the South, the number of primi-tive campsites actually increased by almost 2,000. Texas accounted for 83 percent of the reported loss ofprimitive campsites. Beginning with the 1995 AIX, Texas reported no primitive campsites. During the sameperiod, the number of improved campsites increased by almost 2,200, so it is very likely that Texas reclassi-fied most of its primitive campsites and perhaps closed others.

Cabins and cottages represent a significant part of the state park estate. The North and South accountfor about 87 percent of the more than 6,000 cabins and cottages in the United States. Only seven States do nothave cabins or cottages. These facilities are a distinctive feature of state parks. Between 1991 and 1995, thenumber of cabins and cottages increased a modest 7 percent. The increase in year-round cabins and cottageswas 14 percent compared to a decline in seasonal cabins and cottages of about 5 percent. The increase inyear-round cabins and cottages signals a trend towards extending use of state parks.

Outdoor Recreation Resources III

‘Ihble III.16: Number of State Park System Facilities and Percent SeasonaI by ‘Qpe of Facility and Region, 199S

Qpe of Facility Region

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Improved campsites 71,336 (77) 30,706 (14) 18,216 (39) 21,707 (25) 141,965 (49)Primitive campsites 16,938 (63) 5,153 (2) 18,605 (10) 9,063 (37) 49,759 (32)Cabin/cottages 2,728 (47) 2,562 (9) 376 (63) 408 (5) 6,074 (29)Lodges 43 (23) 53 (0) 7 (86) 7 (0) 110 (15)Lodge rooms 2,648 (16) 2,681 (0) 200 (80) 609 (0) 6,138 (9)Golf courses 48 (79) 54 (0) 4 (75) 6 (66) 112 (40)Golf Holes 748 (75) 837 (0) 54 (83) 72 (63) 1,711 (38)Marinas 98 (93) 82 (5) 55 (25) 11 (45) 246 (46)Swimming pools 158 (91) 128 (97) 8 (88) 2 (100) 296 (93)Stables 35 (83) 23 (61) 13 (62) 4 (50) 75 (71)Ski slopes 25 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (100) 29 (100)

’ Percentage of facilities which are operated on a seasonal basis is given in parentheses.

Source: National Association of State Park Directors, Annual Information Exchunge, 1996.

Development of lodges as revenue-producing facilities for state parks has increased by 31 percent since1991. The North Region had the largest growth with.12 new lodge sites, followed by the South (8) and thePacific(b). There are 110 total lodges in 109 areas throughout the United States. Only 26 of the 50 reportingStates have lodges. Kentucky leads the nation with 15, followed by Ohio, Illinois and West Virginia with 8each. Eight of the reporting States have only one lodge. Most lodges operate year round, but 16 of them areseasonal. Both Missouri and South Dakota report 5 seasonal lodges. In all, a capacity of over 6,000 lodgerooms was reported, an average of more than 55 rooms per lodge. Year-round lodges tend to be larger thanseasonal lodges. The number of lodge rooms grew almost 13 percent between 1991 and 1995.

Golfing opportunities in state parks appear to be growing, but the data are somewhat conilicting. Al-though there was a net decline of three golf courses between 1991 and 1995, the number of year-round golfcourses increased by 11 (8 in the North). We suspect that five courses that had been seasonal now operate allyear. Golf participation has grown dramatically in the last decade. Not only is the influence of the sport beingfelt, but also the potential for golf courses to generate revenue. The bulk of the state golf courses are in theSouth, as are the number of year-round holes. The North has the most seasonal holes. Between 1991 and1995, the number of year-round holes in the state park estate grew by 42 percent and seasonal holes availablefor play increased 95 percent. All of the seasonal golfing holes were added in the North.

The presence of marinas in the state park estate has grown only moderately. Between 1991 and 1995,the number of areas with marinas grew by 5 percent, but the number of operating marinas declined. The losswas all in seasonal marinas; the number of year-round marinas increased. Only 10 states report not having amarina in their system. The Pacific Coast Region has the fewest marinas, probably because so many privatemarinas exist along the Pacific Coast.

Swimming pools are a regional emphasis in the North and South. Of all pools available, 97 percent arein these regions. The data suggest that the bulk of the pools are outdoors and only in operation during thesummer. It is also suspected the 20 indoor pools are associated with year-round lodges. For example, seven ofthe 20 year-round pools are in Ohio, a State with 8 year-round lodges. Swimming pools continue to be built.From 1991 to 1995, the number of seasonal pools increased 56 percent, while the number of year-round poolsdeclined 46 percent.

Stables are present in all of the regions, although less so in the Western regions. Their number has beenrelatively constant. Between 1991 and 1995 there was no increase in the total number of stables. Seven year-round stables were eliminated, but seven seasonal stables were added. Stables are the only reported state parkfacility that did not change between the two reporting periods. Ten states report ski slopes. Minnesota has 14,and Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington all report two ski slopes each. Clearly, skislopes are not prominent in the state park estate, and exist only in States with sufficient snow and cold.


A key trend in the facilities provided by state park systems is the move from seasonal to year-round use.With some exceptions, numbers of seasonal facilities are declining and the numbers of year-round facilitiesare increasing. Many seasonal facilities are either being converted to year-round facilities or are being closed.The reasons for conversion are probably the increased demand by Americans for year-round recreation andincreased financial pressure on state parks to produce revenue. Closure of seasonal facilities is attributable togeneration of insufficient revenue to cover costs. State parks are more than just areas to view wildlife andenjoy nature. Increasingly, they are destination resorts or camping destinations. The natural beauty anddiversity of recreational and educational opportunities that are accessible to large numbers of people assuresa strong role for state park systems in the spectrum of outdoor recreation providers.

America’s State Parks-An End-of-Century Assessment

(By Ney C. Landrum, Executive Director, National Association of State Park Directors, Tallahassee, FL)

The state parks of the United States have been a major provider of public outdoor recreation for almosta century. Starting with the designation of a few scattered sites in the mid- to late-1800s the state parkmovement gained significant momentum in the 1920s and 1930s with establishment of the first real statepark systems. Today, the 50 state park systems contain almost 12 million acres in some 5,500 individualunits, and host about three-quarters of a billion visitors a year (National Association of State Park Directors:1996 Annud Information Exchange). Because of their large number and great diversity, it is difficult to gen-eralize about the state parks. For the most part, however, they concentrate on the provision of resource-bused outdoor recreation-that is, those types of recreational activities that are supported essentially by theresources (which may be either natural or cultural) of the park rather than by man-made facilities. In thisrespect, the state parks are similar to the national parks, although typically much smaller in size. With theirwide distribution, the state parks are easily accessible to prospective users, and have historically catered tothe population base within the general vicinity. In some cases, though, the state parks were conceived prima-rily as an attraction for principally out-of-state tourists, acknowledging their value for economic purposes inaddition to the satisfaction of public outdoor recreation needs.

Although the state parks continue to be an important, if not essential, component of state governmentservices, for the past two decades or so they have found themselves less able to compete effectively with otherprograms for public funding. In this era of increasingly tight budgets and shifting government priorities, statepark programs in some extreme cases have not been funded sufficiently to maintain their status quo, muchless to expand to meet increasing outdoor recreation demand. This deteriorating financial situation probablyhas brought about the most momentous change in state park operating philosophy since inception of themovement.

As noted, the state parks have long acknowledged an economic purpose of varying degree, and by virtueof providing popular services for a fee have assumed an entrepreneurial role as well. Thus, it is a simple matterprocedurally to generate revenues through many aspects of state park operations: entrance fees, parking fees,camping and other activity fees, sales of goods and services either directly or through concessions, and soforth. Historically, the state parks have offset a significant portion of their operating costs with such revenues.When the effect of serious budget cut-backs first hit the state parks in the early 1970s the common responsewas to raise more revenue through new and increased fees to compensate for reductions in general revenue.The relative ease with which this was done resulted in even greater demands for financial self-sufficiencybeing placed on the state park agencies. From 1975 to 1995, state park revenues increased by 364%, and thedegree of operating cost recovery from 35.8% to 43.0% (National Recreation and Park Association: Stute PurkStutistics-197.5, and National Association of State Park Directors: 1996 Annuul Injbrmution Exchunge).

Outdoor Recreation Resources II3

Selected State Park Statistics for the 50 State Park Systems of the United States, 1975-1995

1975# 1980 1985 1990 1995

State park units 3,804 4,512 4,726* 4,599 5,541

Acreage (1000’s) 9,838 9,275 10,175 10,346 11,807

Day visitors(1000’S) 465,302 467,051 597,669 664,047 686,483

Overnight visitors(1000’S) 51,488 68,204 62,572 60,291 59,121

Full-time staff 18,083 11,192 12,950 15,739 18,980

Part-time staff 26,846 21,168 21,032 25,981 29,861

Operating expendi-tures ($1 000’s) 322,276 495,378 740,637 1,060,401 1,244,903

Fixed capitaloutlay ($1000’~) 319,704 490,286 275,788 435,051 275,771

Operating revenue($lOOfss) 115,406 180,595 284,657 401,800 535,685

# 1975 data are from State Purk Statistics-197.5, published by the National Recreation and Park Associa-tion, 1977. Remaining data are from the appropriate volumes ofAnnual Infomnution Exchange, publishedby the National Association of State Park Directors. Because of possible differences in methodology, datafrom the two different sources may not be fully comparable in every respect.

* The actual published figure was adjusted in this one instance to make it more directly comparable withthe corresponding figures for the other years.

Although greater emphasis has, perforce, been placed on revenue generation over the !ast two decades,the state parks have not deviated materially from their central mission of providing resource-based outdoorrecreation opportunities to the public at modest cost. In fact, the parks’ ability to offset budget shortfallsthrough self-generation of revenues has in part enabled steady, if not spectacular, growth to continue in parkacreage, facilities and visitation-although not always without conflict and controversy over the side-effectsof certain of these revenue measures. Questions have been raised, for instance, about fee increases and thepossibility of pricing the state parks out of reach of lower-income families, usually considered a major targetuser group for such public recreation areas. Another frequently expressed concern is the possibility of over-commercialization-changing the character of the parks with too many revenue-producing facilities, such aslodges, restaurants, golf courses and marinas. Fortunately, most state park systems seek to achieve a balancein their programs, using classification, zoning and similar techniques, so that some areas may be identified forintensive development while others are kept in near pristine condition. To juggle all of the demands success-fully, state park professionals today must still be qualified resource managers even as they strive to operatetheir parks in a more business-like manner to “make ends meet.”

A generation ago, a state parks staffer would likely refer to park users as “visitors” or “patrons;” today,the term “customer” is more commonly heard. Semantics aside, that seemingly innocuous variation in termi-nology signifies a different orientation in the operation of state park programs in this day and time. While thestate parks have retained their immense popularity with the public, they seem to have lost some of the statusas an important public service that provided the momentum for their establishment in years past. Statelegislatures, confronted by other pressing demands for government funding, have tended to take the route ofleast resistance where parks are concerned. Although the level of appropriations for state parks nationwide


has increased steadily over the years (up 286% since 1975 [op. cit.]), it nevertheless reflects a growing depen-dence on the ability of the parks to generate a substantial part of their own operating funds. This attitude ofmore or less letting the parks “fend for themselves” has had the practical effect of changing the way many ofthe nation’s state park programs operate.

In their efforts to become more entrepreneurial, the state parks have experimented with a number ofapproaches for either raising revenue or cutting costs. Merchandizing activities have been greatly expanded,providing for new lines of goods as well as for innovative sales techniques. Retail outlets for park-relatedmerchandise in off-park locations, such as shopping malls, have been tried, as have mail-order catalog sales ofsimilar items. Subsidies from private businesses, in the form of either cash or goods and services, are beingpursued successfully in exchange for licenses to operate in state parks or recognition in state park relatedcontexts. New partnerships have been formed with private enterprise to construct and operate major parkfacilities and, in some cases, to assume responsibility from the state for operating existing park areas.“Privatization,” with its infinite variations, is probably the cost-cutting concept generating the most interestin state park circles today.

State park agencies are also looking increasingly to the nonprofit segment of the private sector for helpin dealing with current problems. “Friends” groups, support organizations, and foundations of one kind oranother have been established in almost every state. These groups of highly-motivated citizens are called onto provide volunteer help in the parks, to raise funds for various projects, and to lobby state legislatures insupport of state park programs. In addition to the direct, more immediate results achieved through theseefforts, this type of citizen involvement also helps to create a larger, lasting constituent base for the stateparks.

Although state parks have been popular outdoor recreation destinations for many years, the overall rateof visitation increase has been relatively modest-up only 44% from 1975 to 1995 [op. cit.]. The unusedcapacity available in the fifty state park systems is undoubtedly substantial. To take advantage of this situa-tion and, not incidentally, generate additional revenues through increased visitation, state park agencies havebecome more aggressive in recent years in marketing the recreational opportunities of the parks. Such mar-keting activities take many forms, and frequently involve cooperative arrangements with state tourism agen-cies. In fact, state parks programs in several states have actually been housed in the agencies responsible forstatewide tourism promotion. While this organizational placement has certain advantages, it also has raisedsome concern that the resource management responsibility of state parks might be compromised by toomuch promotion and the resulting need to accommodate artificially-induced levels of use. It is still too earlyto assess the impact of this factor.

While, from a management standpoint, financial considerations seem to have exerted a major influenceover the direction state park programs have taken in recent years, the parks themselves have taken on a newaura of importance in this era of heightened environmental awareness and appreciation for nature. Stateparks, being much more accessible than the national parks and typically more “green” than the local parks,are ideally situated to serve the “back to nature” needs of the American people. The state parks have re-sponded to this demand by continuing to do what they have always done best: provide traditional forms ofresource-based outdoor recreation in an essentially natural setting. As the need has grown, the parks haveexpanded (total acreage has increased by 20% since 1975 [op. c&l), installed basic facilities for access, safety,and appropriate use, and provided an adequate level of staffing to manage the resources and service thevisitors (although the ratio of park acreage to full-time staff personnel increased from 544 to 622 between1975 and 1995 [op. cit.], suggesting a slight decline in overall staff capability). The parks have also continuedto emphasize interpretation as their paramount program offering, recognizing the parity of nature apprecia-tion and environmental education with the more traditional forms of active outdoor recreation: picnicking,swimming, camping, boating, hiking, and the like. The fundamental precept of good state park planning is toprovide a bulunce of appropriate resource-based outdoor recreational experiences-not necessarily withineach park, but within the system as a whole.

The Future of State ParksAmerica’s state parks-while continuing to grow, adjust, and adapt-have essentially achieved maturity

as a comprehensive nationwide movement. They have a clearly definable mission, and have situated them-selves well to serve their important purpose. While some further expansion of their resource base can beexpected, it probably will be opportunistic, adding a new park here and there as circumstances permit. Morelikely will be continued development of new facilities-especially of the more up-scale variety-designed todraw additional visitors from farther distances. Private capital will be wooed for joint venture projects of likelyincreasing magnitude. Further experimentation with various degrees of “privatization” of state park opera-tions will undoubtedly occur over the next decade or so.

Outdoor Recreation Resources II5

The greatest uncertainty facing the state parks in the foreseeable future is the matter of unstable fund-ing. This uncertainty, and the probability that the parks will be required to generate an even larger share oftheir operating budgets, places an unnatural constraint on the ability of park administrators to plan and carryout their program in a manner purely to fulfill the mission of their state park system. Be that as it may, it isexpected that the state parks will, through a variety of innovative measures, obtain the funding necessary tomaintain their operations at least a minimally adequate level.

One encouraging aspect of state park operations over the years has been the consistently high level ofuser satisfaction reflected by in-park surveys and opinion polls. Even today, it is apparent from overall userreaction that the quality of experience in the parks has not suffered appreciably from the vicissitudes of parkfunding and consequent operational adjustments. Managing assets so as to maintain the quality of outdoorrecreational experience while still protecting resources remains a real challenge for state park administrators.Because it is much easier to assess visitor satisfaction than resource condition, there is a danger that-especially in times of budget short-falls and limited management options-the former will be selected over thelatter as the sole measure of operational success. Maintaining the right balance between use und preservationconsiderations will therefore continue to be the most fundamental issue with which state park professionalshave to deal in the years ahead.

State Trail Programs in the United States

(By Roger L. Moore, Associate Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, andMark I. Ivy, Graduate Research Assistant, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC)

Trails are an integral part of the infrastructure of North America. They have been used for transporta-tion for centuries and recreation for many generations. Trails are still essential for recreation and transporta-tion today, but they are also increasingly valuable for a host of other benefits. They generate significanttourism expenditures, improve health and fitness, attract corporate relocations, increase community pride,facilitate environmental education, provide access to other recreation areas, create a sense of place, motivateconservation, and provide open-space protection and much more. The activities that take place on trails areexpanding rapidly as are the types of trails being provided including traditional backcountry trails, rail-trails,surfaced multiple-use trails in suburban and urban areas, and greenways. Trails have been and continue to bebuilt and managed by public, private, and nonprofit organizations as well as less-formal trail user groups.Among the most important providers of trail opportunities in the U.S., however, are states. They manage largeareas of public land with large numbers of existing trail miles spread widely across their states and are wellpositioned to facilitate local trail efforts. This section focuses on the trail programs operated by state govern-ments. The objectives are to describe the current status of these programs and to identify the current trendsand future issues they will soon be facing.

Description of State Trail ProgramsNot surprisingly, the trail programs of the various states are quite diverse. All of the states responding to

a survey conducted by Moore (1994) were involved in some aspect of trail development or management,although the programs are located in various state agencies and some do not consider their trail efforts toconstitute a formal trails program. In fact, most states have more than one program relating to trails. Staff sizeof the state trail programs vary from 0 to 40 full time equivalents (FTE) with an average program staff of 2.7.Only about 35 percent of the 52 trail administrators responding were assigned full time to trails in 1994(including bicycle and/or pedestrian responsibilities). Those who reported not being assigned to trails fulltime, spent an average of about half their time on trail issues.

Seventy percent of the trail administrators reported that their states had state trail legislation. Washing-ton passed the earliest trail legislation (1967) and Vermont passed the most recent legislation (1994). Justover half of the legislation was passed during the 1970s. The earliest trail staff was hired by California in 1945and the most recent in 1992 by several states. Nearly half of the programs hired their first staff during the1970s as well.

The types of activities carried out by state trail programs are varied, as are the priorities attached toeach activity. Of 22 different activities included in the survey, the following five were considered to be theprograms’ highest priorities on average: “providing trail opportunities close to where people live,” “staff sup-port for state trails advisory committee,” “awarding grants,” “developing trail plans,” and “providing an inter-connected system of trails in our state.”


State Trail Plans and Support InformationThirty-two programs (66 percent) reported that their state had developed a state trails plan since 1974

and over half of those have been revised since 1990. Thirty-two programs also reported that they had a statetrails inventory and 24 said their Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) included esti-mates of total trail usage or number of users by activity type for their state. Five others reported that they hadsuch information in planning documents other than their SCORP. In terms of support information, 70 percentof the programs reported having trail construction guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, while about60 percent had trail construction guidelines for other types of trails. One-third of the state trails programsreported having estimates of the economic impact of trails or trail use in their states.

Sources and Uses of FundsMost trail administrators estimated that federal land managing agency budgets and state appropriations

were the largest source of planning and maintenance funds being expended on trails in their states in FiscalYear 1993.Z9 Most considered the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds to be thelargest sources of acquisition and development funding, however. Overall, state trail programs spent the larg-est portion of their budgets on acquisition and development expenditures and the least for administration andplanning. All but two of the programs were active in awarding trail grants within their states. These grantprograms included various sources of monies including the state appropriations, the National RecreationalTrails Fund (NRTF), Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), registration fees, etc. The supply of grantmoney was not sufficient to meet the demand. Some states, such as Delaware, have initiated a state version ofthe Land and Water Conservation Fund to try and fill the void created when funding virtually ceased for thestate side of the federal program. Other innovative sources of funding used by trail programs include variousforms of taxes, license fees, bond issues, and lottery funds.

Trail I&ends and Factors Motivating Trail DevelopmentTrail administrators felt that support for and use of trails had increased in all areas over the past five

years. Two-thirds reported that overall use was seeing “significant increases” in their states. Trail use WCIS

seen as increasing more than support for trails, however. Of all the types of support examined, administratorsfelt that public support had increased more than any other kind of support during the past five years. Fortypercent reported “significant increases” in public support. Volunteer involvement was reported to have in-creased at a similar rate. The weakest area of support was state trail program budgets. Although 24 respon-dents (47 percent) reported increases in their budgets over the past five years, 19 (37 percent) reported nochange.

Trail administrators reported that the largest increases in use over the past five years had occurred insuburban areas. Increases there were said to have been “minor” by 42 percent of respondents and “signifi-cant” by 52 percent. The smallest increases were reported in backcountry areas. Thirty-one percent felt therehad been no change in backcountry trail use in their states and six percent reported that use had actuallydecreased on their backcounty trails. Trail administrators, on average, reported increases in all 10 activitieslisted in the survey. Mountain bike use, however, was felt to have increased more than that of any other trailactivity. Just under 80 percent said mountain bike use had increased, and 25 percent said the increases hadbeen significant. Motorized types of use were felt to have increased less than nonmotorized uses overall (Table111.17).

Table 111.17: State Trends in lkiI Use Over the Past Five Years by Location and ‘Ifpe

Use

LocationUse in Suburban AreasUse in Urban AreasUse in Rural AreasUse in Backcountry Areas

Mean Standard Deviation

4.46l .614.43 .644.02 .683.84 .90

Number Responding

50515049

“These estimates include all trails in the state, not just those managed by the states.


Table 111.17: State Trends in Trail Use Over the Past Five Years by Location and Qpe

UsemeUse by Mountain BicyclistsUse by Walkers/HikersUse by Other BicyclistsUse by EquestriansUse by Runners

Mean Standard Deviation Number Resnonding

4.86 .46 494.33 .69 494.04 .68 483.90 .83 413.78 .87 49

Use by Snowmobiles 3.68 .85 41Use by Cross-Country Skiers 3.67 .75 43Use by ATVs 3.62 1.01 47Use by 4-Wheel Drives 3.45 .95 47Use by Motorcyclists 3.40 .80 47

l Means based on a five-point scale with 1 indicating “Significant Decreases” and 5 “Significant Increases.”

Source: Moore, R. L. (1994). State trail programs: A survey of state trail administrators. Denver, CO: TheNational Association of State Trail Administrators. Available c/o Colorado State Trails Program, 1313 ShermanSt., Room 618, Denver, CO 80203.

Trail administrators had interesting insights on what was motivating trail development in their states.They were given a list of nine broad public benefits that trails might have and asked to rate each in terms ofhow m_uch of a factor they felt it was in motivating the development of new trails in their state. The responsesindicated that all of the factors were considered to be of at least some importance. “Public recreation oppor-tunities,” however, was by far the most important. The second most important motivation, on average, was“tourism and economic development. ” “Traffic reduction and transportation alternatives” was felt to be theleast important motivating factor of the nine examined (Table 111.18). Two states considered “natural re-sources protection” and “preserving railroad rights-of-way” as other motives for trail development.

Table 111.18: Factors Motivating Trail Development in State According to State TraiI Administrators

Benefit MeanStandardDeviation

NumberResponding

Public recreation opportunities 6.24l 1.03 49Tourism and economic development 5.45 1.47 51Health and fitness 5.12 1.31 51

Aesthetic beauty 5.08 1.38 51Preserving undeveloped open space 4.96 1.70 49Community pride 4.94 1.45 50

Access for disabled persons 4.78 1.25 51Public education about

nature and the environment 4.61 1.42 51Traffic reduction and

transportation alternatives 4.16 1.68 49

‘Means based on a seven-point scale with 1 indicating “Not At All Important” and 7 “Extremely Important.”

Source: Moore, R. L. 1994. State Trail Programs: A Survey of State Trail Administrators. Denver, CO: TheNational Association of State Trail Administrators. Available c/o Colorado State Trails Program, 1313 ShermanSt., Room 618, Denver, CO 80203.


A final trend identified in the survey was partnerships with volunteers. State trail programs are clearlytapping into this source of labor to provide trail opportunities. Thirty-five states had figures regarding thenumber of volunteers involved on state land. The two states with the greatest volunteer involvement wereFlorida, which estimated that 14,000 volunteers had contributed labor worth over $1.1 million in 1993, andNew Hampshire where an estimated 80 percent of the trails on state land were adopted by volunteers. Admin-istrators also identified numerous techniques they were using to encourage volunteer involvement on trailssuch as providing recognition and/or award programs, sponsoring “Adopt-A-Trail” programs, providing sti-pends, workers’ compensation, National Trails Day events, technical assistance, tools, etc.

Current and Future Trail IssuesState programs are currently facing obstacles to their trail efforts and expect to encounter many of

these same obstacles as well as new challenges in the future. When asked, “What are the biggest roadblocks togetting and keeping trails on the ground in your state?’ over one quarter of the responses identified funding asthe biggest roadblock. Various threats to trails and trail lands was the next largest group. A large number of thetrail administrators also reported that there was a major problem with lack of awareness of the value of trailsand too little support for trails. This roadblock was seen as a problem with government agencies and officialsas well as with the general public (Table 111.19).

NumberI[tern Responding Percent

1?unding 30 27.5rl’hreats to Trails and Trail Lands 24 22.01Lack of Awareness and Support 20 18.31Funding Maintenance 10 9.21nteragency Coordination 6 5.5

rTrail Program 3 2.81Leadership 3 2.81i’ederal Legislation 3 2.8!State Legislation 2 1.8Conflict/Multiple Use 2 1.8

Motorized Use 2 1.8Maintenance 1 0.9Technical Assistance 1 0.9Volunteers 1 0.9Use Trends 1 0.9

Total 1 0 9 1 0 0 . 0


Table 111.19: Biggest Roadblocks to Getting and Keeping State Trails on the Ground in State

When asked to identify the most pressing issues currently facing trails in their states, the most frequentresponses related to specific threats to trails and trail lands. Many of these concerns involved landowneropposition and development obliterating existing trails and potential trail locations. Lack of funding andconcerns about trail conflict and other issues related to multiple use were the next most pressing issuesidentified. Other issues currently of concern to the states are listed in Table 111.20.

Table 111.20 also presents a summary of the responses to a question which asked respondents to identifythe most pressing issues they felt were currently facing trails nationally. The concerns identified were similarto the ones expressed for the state level with an even greater concern about funding. Administrators saw

Outdoor Recreation Resources I19

funding to be the most pressing issue nationwide, apparently even more pressing than funding in their homestates. Specific threats to trails and trail lands was their second greatest type of concern followed by conflictand multiple use. Funding for the National Recreational Trails Fund was specifically mentioned by eight of theprograms making it the fourth most frequently expressed issue.

Table 111.20: Most Pressing Issues Facing Trails Now and Five-10 Years from Now

Currently Currently In the FutureIn Your State In the Nation Nationally

Number Number NumberResponding Percent Responding Percent Responding Percent

Threats to Trails andTrail Lands 29 15.5 18 15.3 18 15.3

Funding 25 13.4 30 25.4 13 11.1Conflict/Multiple Use 22 11.8 11 9.3 21 17.8Funding Maintenance 14 7.5 7 5.9 6 5.1Trail Plans 13 7.0 0 0.0 2 1.7

Motorized UseInteragency CoordinationFunding DevelopmentProviding Trails Close

to Where People LiveTrail ProgramMaintenance

10 5.3 3 2.5 5 4.29 4.8 6 5.1 2 1.78 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

8 4.3 2 1.7 6 5.17 3.7 2 1.7 1 0.86 3.2 4 3.4 2 1.7

Technical AssistancePromoting Trails and

Trail IssuesFederal LegislationStaffingLeadership

5 2.7 7 5.9 2 1.7

5 2.7 5 4.2 3 2.55 2.7 0 0.0 4 3.44 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.04 2.1 5 4.2 2 1.7

Trail Development 4 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0Trail Safety 3 1.6 2 1.7 5 4.2Non-Motorized Use 3 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0Rail-Trails 2 1.1 1 0.8 3 2.5Volunteers 1 0.5 2 1.7 0 0.0

Funding NRTF 0 0.0 8 6.8 0 0.0Long Distance Trails 0 0.0 3 2.5 3 2.5Use Trends 0 0.0 2 1.7 2 1.7Liability 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.4Other Legislation 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.4

Trails for Transportation 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.4Resource Management 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5User Fees 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7Mountain Bike Use 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8

Total 187 100.0 118 99.8 118 99.8


I20 Outdoor Recreation in American Life

Trail administrators were then asked to speculate about what they expected to be the most importantnew issues trails would be facing in the next S-10 years. Conflict and multiple use were the biggest concernstrail administrators saw on the horizon followed by threats to trails and trail lands. They still expected fundingand funding for maintenance to be major concerns, however. Providing trails close to where people live wasthe fifth most frequently mentioned issue trail administrators felt they would be facing in the next decade.

Respondents also identified the new or emerging user groups they felt would be important in 10 years.Mountain biking was the response of nearly 26 percent of the trail administrators. It was mentioned morethan twice as often as the next most frequent response of walking and hiking (12.1 percent). Other emerginguser groups identified were motorized use (10.6 percent), bicycling (10.6 percent), roller blading/in-line skat-ing (9.1 percent), and commuting (7.8 percent). Various trail interest groups were also noted as new or emerg-ing. These included “groups with political power,” “wise land use groups,” “trails planning groups,” “trailadvisory groups,” ”trail advocacy groups,” and groups promoting “interagency cooperation.” Various seg-ments of the population were also considered to be new or emerging user groups. Foremost among these werethe physically challenged and seniors.

Conclusion of State Trail ProgramsWhat is the current status of state trail programs in the United States? Almost every state is involved in

the trail development and management business, and no state has the resources to meet the public demandsfor trails. ISTEA, the National Recreational Trails Fund Act and state level programs that were developed toaugment the Land and Water Conservation Fund have become the primary sources of funding for trail plan-ning and development. Trail maintenance and management tasks have increasingly been assumed by volun-teers. Public demand for trails continues to increase and technology is providing recreationists with new waysto enjoy trails. Mountain bikes and in-line skates are two recent inventions that have drastically changed themix of users on trails. The increasing number of users and types of use on finite trail systems make thepotential for conflict high and call for proactive planning and management at all levels.

The states are in a strong position to guide the development of trails into the next century. Not only dothey manage extensive trail networks, states also manage federal grant funds and often provide state funds fortrail purposes as well. States are frequently more in touch with local issues and organizations than are federalagencies. States can encourage the development of trails as part of the infrastructure of communities and canencourage the development of trail networks as opposed to isolated trail segments. Overall, state trail pro-grams play a vital role in coordinating and providing trail opportunities both in communities and throughoutthe states.

State ForestsOther State Resource Systems

State forests offer outdoor recreation opportunities in nearly every state. They offer an alternative tothe more developed state parks in the form of more primitive and dispersed recreation. They often resemblefederal backcountry land more so than state parks, which usually are designed to serve large numbers ofvisitors. Typical activities at state forests include camping, hiking, nature study, picnicking, horseback riding,fishing, and hunting. In some Northeastern states, there are few distinctions among state forests, state parks,and State Fish and Wildlife Areas, but that is not the case in most other states (Knudson, 1984). Many stateforests are little known because their recreational opportunities are not publicized. The focus in state forestsoften is on timber production and forest management demonstrations. Some state forests, however, have setaside areas for intensive recreation use.

Among the SO States, only Nevada did not list state-owned forest land in the 1996 ‘State ForestryStatistics Report.” This report is an unpublished document summarizing the annual survey of state forestersdone by the National Association of State Foresters (NASF). Even the Great Plains states of Kansas, Nebraska,and the Dakotas reported some state-owned forest land. The report notes that there are over 50 million acresof state-owned forest land in the United States (Table 111.21), but it is unclear whether all tracts referencedare designated as “state forests.” By contrast, Jensen (1995) and Cordell et al. (1990) both estimated thatthere are approximately 26 million acres of designated state forests in the country.

A more meaningful statistic is acreage of state forests in states with a forest recreation program. Thisfigure amounts to almost 23 million acres nationally. The North has 76 percent of this acreage. By compari-son, the 1989 Forest Service Resources Planning Act Assessment reported 26.2 million acres of state forestsopen to recreation, regardless of whether the state operated a formal recreation program. Since these num-bers do not measure the same thing, the comparison is somewhat tenuous. States that do not have a formalstate forest recreation program undoubtedly offer some recreation opportunities indicating that the 1996estimate of 22.8 million acres likely underestimates actual recreation acreage.


Table 111.21: Total Area, Area in Recreation Programs, and Recreation Budgets ofState Forest Programs by Region, 1996’

NorthRegion


State Forest acreage? 18.58 3.59 3.61 24.50 SO.28State Forest acreage

in states with forestrecreation program 17.40 2.37 0.03 3.00 22.80

Total budget of stateforest recreationprograms” 9,546 842 12 3,442 13,842

‘All acreages are in millions.

?Does not include Arizona, Hawaii, and California, states which did not respond to NASF State Forestrystatistics study. Acreage estimates for these states from the 1992 National Resources Inventory: Arizona-462,700; California-435,000; Hawaii-718,900.

3Dollars are in thousands.

Source: 1996 State Forestry Statistics Report. National Association of State Foresters. Washington, D.C.USDA Forest Service. 1989 Resources Planning Act Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness.

The share of state forest recreation land in the two eastern regions is larger than in the West. Half of the50 states have a forest recreation program, according to the NASF, and 22 of these 25 states are in the East.Fifteen of the 20 Northern states and seven of the 13 Southern states reported having a forest recreationprogram within their state forest agency. Just one of 12 Rocky Mountain states and two of the five PacificCoast states have a recreation program.

Alaska has about 43 percent of all state forest acreage in the United States (21.5 of the 50.3 million), butit does not have a forest recreation program. Washington has nearly all of the forest recreation programfunding spent in the Pacific Coast. Washington trailed only Michigan in the amount of annual expenditures.Oregon also has a state forest recreation program, but it did not report expenditures. After Michigan andWashington, the states with the largest program budgets were Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Also,New York, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are the leaders in state forest acreage among the lower 48states.

State WildernessSeveral states manage designated wilderness through formal wilderness programs similar to the Na-

tional Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Eight states-six in the East and two in the West-had suchprograms in 1995, all established during the 1970s (Figure 111.13). These areas complement the NWPS byprotecting some ecosystems not found on federal land. Further, they provide opportunities for primitive anddispersed recreation, especially in the East where such opportunities are relatively scarce. Stankey (1984)conducted the first overview of state wilderness programs in the early 1980s. He found that nine states man-aged a total of 48 areas comprising approximately 1.67 million acres. The following criteria defined an estab-lished State Wilderness program: (1) statutory or administrative recognition; (2) goals for preserving naturalqualities and allowing primitive recreational opportunities; (3) prohibition of development activities; (4) mini-mum areas size criteria; (5) recognition of other values compatible with wilderness management (e.g., his-toric, scientific, educational, and scenic).

I22 Outdoor Recreation in American Life

Figure 111.13: Acreage in State Wilderness Porgrams, 1996l

‘Alraka, not shown, has a State Wilderness program with 5 areas covering 1.36 million acres.

Source: Peterson, M. R 1996. Wilderness by state mandate: a survey ofstate-design&d wilderness areas.Natural 16(3): 192-197.

Peterson (1996) did a follow-up survey of State Wilderness programs in the mid-1990s. His researchshowed that one state program was eliminated (Florida in 1989), but that the protected acreage in the remain-ing eight-state programs almost doubled to 3.11 million acres. 3o The number of state Wilderness areas alsoincreased from 48 to 58 by the mid-1990s with one new area pending approval in Missouri. Ten of the original48 areas were in Florida, so the increase in the number of areas in the remaining eight states amounts to a 53percent gain in those states. Ten of the areas in three states (Alaska, New York, and California) are also quitelarge, averaging 100,000 acres. These same three states make up 94 percent of state wilderness systems with2.92 million acres. The other five states, all in the East, have 185,000 acres of state Wilderness in 26 units.When combined with New York, these states account for 42 percent of the acreage and 79 percent of the 58units. Remove Alaska, however, and the Eastern states make up three-fourths of the state Wilderness acres.Other states have designated individual areas as “wilderness,” e.g., Baxter State Park in Maine and McCurtainCounty Wilderness Area in Oklahoma, but have not established formal wilderness systems.

State Fish and Wildlife LandState governments also manage wildlife and fish resources. Every state has an agency or commission of

some form responsible for wildlife and fish management and regulation. Operations of these agencies usuallyinclude three functions (Knudson, 1984): (1) regulation of hunting and fishing; (2) assistance to landowners,including public agencies, on habitat management and wildlife population manipulation; and (3) managementof public land habitat.

The authorization and administrative functions of wildlife and fish agencies vary by state. Some operateas divisions in state departments of natural resources and others operate as independent government com-missions with political appointments. Whatever the case, state fish and wildlife agencies own some tracts andmanage others through lease agreements with various public and private property owners. In most states,state fish and wildlife tracts are called “Wildlife Management Areas” or “State Fish and Game Lands.” Similarto state forests, they tend to offer primitive opportunities and more dispersed settings than are found in stateparks. Besides hunting and fishing, other popular activities include camping, picnicking, hiking, and naturestudy. Knudson (1984) notes that these recreational activities are more popular than fishing and hunting onstate fish and wildlife land because they are not constrained by seasons.

““The 1996 NASF State Forestry Statistics Report also lists eight states having a “Wilderness Management” program within their stateforestry divisions. However, these are evidently not the same as the authorized State wilderness programs since only three states arepresent on both lists. No further details are provided about the duties and responsibilities of these management programs located withinstate divisions of forestry.


Unfortunately, there is no current inventory of state fish and wildlife land in the United States. Jensen(1995) described 9.3 million state fish and wildlife acres in the United States based on a BLM report, but thesource could not be confirmed. The 1980 RPA Assessment also estimated about 9 million acres of state wild-life areas, but the 1989 RPA Assessment estimated approximately 14 million acres. These inventories prob-ably did not measure the same resources. One current estimate of state fish and wildlife land comes from the1992 National Resources Inventory (NRI) conducted by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.The measure, however, is not well defined. The NRI refers to “state-owned land with primary use reserved-dedicated to wildlife.” The national total from this measure, excluding Alaska, is 5.7 million acres. That total,even without Alaska, is probably too small to cover all state fish and wildlife land. For example, a recent articlenoted that fish and wildlife land in California had tripled since 1970, and the current amount in that statealone is 825,000 acres (Jacobs, 1997).

State Scenic RiversThe National Wild and Scenic River System and designated units in the National Park System such as

“National River” or “National Scenic Riverway” are two primary ways that rivers are protected by the federalgovernment. A total of 32 state governments also have river protection programs covering approximately 300rivers and 13,500 river miles (Table 111.22). The five largest state systems are in Michigan, Maine, California,Louisiana, and New York and represent over half of the river miles protected by states. Thirteen of the 32states have completed inventories of their rivers, and three have not protected any river miles despite havingan established program. Most of the programs were started in the 1960s and 1970s in the wake of the Wild andScenic Rivers Act of 1968. Seven firograms were established in the 1980s with Idaho’s and New Hampshire’sbeing as late as 1988.

State-sanctioned river protection is largely an eastern-U.S. phenomenon. Eighty-four percent of riversand 78 percent of river miles are in the East. Further, 26 of the 32 states with programs are located in theNorth and South regions. Similar to state wilderness, this pattern is because most western rivers of outstand-ing quality are under federal protection. State programs vary in types of designations and the level of protec-tion. In any event, state scenic rivers represent a significant resource for undeveloped water-based recreation,especially in the East.

Table 111.22: Number and Miles of State-Designed Scenic Rivers by Region, 1993

Number and Mileage RegionNorth South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Number of rivers 156 99 13 35 303River mileage 8,114 2,488 581 2,369 13,552

.Source: Palmer, Tim. 1993. The Wild und Scenic Rioers ofAmericu. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

A recurring theme in nearly every assessment of outdoor recreation in the United States has been theneed for recreation opportunities close to where most people live. This need will accelerate as America be-comes an increasingly urban nation. The large majority of states added developed land (defined as urban andbuilt-up land plus rural transportation infrastructure) at a rate of 10 percent or more during the 1982 to 1992decade (Figure 111.14). Increases were especially large in the Southeast, Southwest, and New England states.Local government agencies, more than any other provider, supply many of the opportunities demanded byurban and suburban dwellers. The President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors estimated in 1987 that 60percent of recreation areas nationwide are provided by local government, most of which are highly developedand managed for intensive use. This has been the traditional emphasis of local government since the origins ofthe “recreation movement” in crowded urban areas in the late 19th century.


Much of what local governments provide is geared toward indoor, rather than outdoor, recreation.31However, the green spaces and athletic fields that local governments provide are highly valued for outdoorrecreation. In addition, many local governments-especially in larger cities, county governments, and specialrecreation and park districts-also manage natural areas, trails, and less developed open space. Local govern-ments, therefore, provide a wide variety of opportunities for outdoor recreation and serve more people thanany other provider by virtue of their location.

Because summary data on the types and amounts of outdoor recreation resources managed by localgovernments are limited, this section presents a combination of survey results, case studies, anecdotal infor-mation, and other observations about the local recreation and park situation. First, we look at local govern-ment recreation and park agencies, drawing inferences about local resources for outdoor recreation frominformation about the agencies that provide them. Second, we discuss outdoor recreation in urban areas,including the settings, infrastructure, management, and issues that affect individuals’ experiences with na-ture in the city. Third, we examine the phenomena of greenways, rail-trails, and other linear recreation paths.The development of these natural corridors for recreation and transportation may be one of the most signifi-cant trends in outdoor recreation supply in the past decade.

Figure 111.14: Percent Increase in Developed Land by State, 1982-1992l

I Las.3 than 10% m Betvmn 10X-20% m More than en

’ Developed land includes urban and built-up land plus rural transportation infrastructure.

Source: 1992 National Resources Inventory, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Recreation and Park Agencies

(By Cheryl S. Beeler, Associate Professor, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida)

Local governments in the United States have long provided recreation and park services. Managementranges from informal and unpaid park committees in unincorporated communities (of perhaps just one per-son) to bureaucracies of several hundred employees in large cities. The common bond between all localproviders is that most offer both (1) recreation programming and services and (2) facilities and parks. TheNational Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) sponsored a study in 1993 to learn more about the localgovernment agencies that manage recreation and parks (Beeler, 1993). The criterion that defined an “agency”was a minimum of one full-time professional staff person. This eliminated very small communities without aformal structure for recreation and parks management. Working with state recreation associations, universityresearchers, and other knowledgeable sources from each state, a total of 4,528 local government departmentswere identified. From this list, a stratified sample (by geographic region, population served, and type of local

9ome of the larger local recreation and parks departments have expanded to cover zoos, stadiums, civic centers, libraries, tourismpromotion, cultural arts, historic sites, and cemeteries.


government jurisdiction) of 1,500 departments was selected for the survey on organization, structure, fi-nance, and budgets. A total of 967 departments (6.5 percent) responded.

Municipal Recreation and ParksJust under three-fourths of the local park and recreation agencies are municipal departments (Table

111.23). Municipalities, including cities, villages, boroughs, and towns, receive legal authority to establish parkand recreation services through state laws, either through recreation enabling acts, special laws, or localcharter provisions. The type of park and recreation services offered by a municipality varies depending on thenumber and type of people served. For example, in communities of less than 2,500 people, the park andrecreation department may operate with only one full-time professional. The number of areas and facilitiesowned and operated is typically limited, and may only include one site, such as a multipurpose park or a smallcommunity center. In most cases, small cities and towns depend heavily on joint-use agreements with localschools for ballfields, courts, gymnasiums, and meeting rooms.

Table 111.23: Number of Local Government Park and Recreation Departments by Type and Region, 1993

Type of local government Region

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Municipal 1,621 896 307 46.5 3,289County 333 416 38 93 880Special District 214 9 0 93 316Other 3 40 0 0 43All Types 2,171 1,361 345 651 4,528

Source: Beeler, Cheryl S. (1993). Nutional Comprehensive Salary and Benefits Study. Arlington, VA: Na-tional Recreation and Park Association.

Most small park and recreation departments rely on community volunteers to coach and officiate sportsleagues, as well as to organize and run youth recreation programs. It is also common to find many recreationprograms and community-wide special events cosponsored by schools, local church groups, civic and frater-nal organizations, and local businesses.

In contrast, municipalities of more than 250,000 may have 50 or more full-time employees. The type ofareas and facilities acquired, developed, and operated may be diverse, including not only multipurpose parks,playgrounds, community centers, sports fields and courts, and swimming pools, but also facilities for perform-ing arts, golf, ice skating, camping, and the enjoyment of nature. Marinas, zoos, aquariums, gardens, museumsand galleries, libraries, and cemeteries may also be provided. Street and area beautification is often a respon-sibility.

Programs may include team sports (softball, baseball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, football, and hockey);individual sports (tennis, golf, aerobics, swimming, and gymnastics); outdoor recreation (picnicking, boating,fishing, hunting, skiing, swimming, biking, walking/hiking, and nature study); summer recreation programsand camps; before-school and after-school programs; instructional classes (arts and crafts, music, dancing,drama, and martial arts); concert, cultural exhibits; special events; and special programs for people withdisabilities. As in small departments, most large municipal park and recreation departments work closelywith voluntary agencies, schools and colleges, church groups, business, and industry in offering programs,services, and community-wide special events.


City purks und recreationureas like Atluntu’s BessieBmnhum Purk ojy&r inner-city r e s i d e n t s unopportuniy to experience“green spuce” close tohome.

County Recreation and ParksNot quite one-fifth of the departments offering park and recreation services at the local level are con-

nected to county governments (Table 111.23). In contrast to municipalities, county governments are legallyestablished as subdivisions of the state. Of the 880 county governments offering park and recreation servicesin the United States, approximately 8.5 percent are in the East.

Early in the 20th century, county departments were primarily responsible for large parks for passiverecreation. At that time, very few county departments provided active programs and services. However, timeschanged and more county park and recreation departments assumed responsibility for active recreation anddirect service programs and activities. Today, county park and recreation systems are highly diverse. Someare similar to systems in small cities or rural towns, employing only one full-time professional, operating oneor two areas and facilities, and focusing on youth programs. Others operate like large municipal departmentswith large staffs ol’fering an array of programs and services and operating a network of parks and facilities foractive recreation.

Special Park DistrictsAbout 7 percent of local park and recreation organizations are special districts (Table 111.24). In several

states, especially Illinois and California, state legislation. authorized establishment of recreation and parkdistricts. Special park districts are independent of other units of local government, but can be likened topolitical subdivisions of states, such as cities and counties. Since special districts have taxing authority, theirprograms are better funded than those of municipalities and counties. As with municipalities and counties,the programs and services of special districts vary with number and type of people served.

Organization, Financing, and BudgetingIn the 1993 NRPA nationwide study, department organization, structure, funding, and compensation of

employees were addressed. The data from the 967 responding departments help describe the current status oflocal government parks and recreation service. Local government parks and recreation departments are typi-cally organized in one of three ways: (1) to provide a combination of parks and recreation services; (2) toprovide recreation services only; or (3) to provide park services only. Early in this century, most local govern-ments organized separate departments for recreation services and for parks. More recently, this organiza-tional pattern has changed. The large majority of local government departments (81 percent) are organized toprovide a combination of park and recreation services. Fifteen percent of the responding departments pro-vided recreation services only, and only 4 percent provided park services only.

Financing of parks and recreation varies by size and type of local government. Obviously, financing ofparks and recreation in a city of l,OOO,OOO is more complex than in a city of less than 2,500. The bulk of local


revenue for operating parks and recreation departments comes from general property taxes, fees, and charges.For major capital outlays, most local parks and recreation departments rely on a combination of revenuesources, including general obligation and revenue bonds, federal and state grants, and special tax assess-ments.

In her NRPA study of local parks and recreation departments, Beeler (1993) collected data on currentoperating budgets, which covered employee salaries and benefits, routine supplies, materials, and contractualservices but not capital outlays. Based on population size of the communities, annual operating budgets forparks and recreation departments ranged from under $35,000 to over $70 million. The median budget for the945 responding departments was $700,000. The number of full-time, permanent staff in these departmentsranged from 1 to 1,127; the median number of employees was eight. Local departments in the western UnitedStates tended to operate with larger budgets and more employees than the other regions.

Issues and TrendsLocal recreation and park administrators face many challenging issues and trends. Many have persisted

over a number of years and will likely continue into the future. We discuss five major issues..

1) Accountability and Justification of ServicesA major issue for all providers of local government services is the mounting pressure to become more

business-like and account for costs of services. Today’s local administrators must explicitly justify their pro-grams and services in terms of benefits to the public. Godbey, Graefe, and James (1992) found that 75 percentof respondents to a national telephone survey of 1,305 Americans used local parks and playgrounds, 51 per-cent occasionally, and 24 percent frequently. The most frequently mentioned benefits that people receivedfrom use of local recreation resources were personal benefits (such as exercise, fitness, conditioning, relax-ation, and peace) and social benefits (such as competition, cooperation, and sense of community).

2) Financing Capital ImprovementsA second issue impacting local recreation and park administration is financing capital improvements,

including land acquisition, facility development, and facility renovation. Over the past 10 years, major cut-backs have been made in federal, state, and local funding. At the same time, the American public has asked formore local park areas and facilities, more recreation programs, and increased services. Today’s administratorsface inadequate levels of funding to satisfy growing public demands.

3) Operating BudgetsClosely related is the issue of adequate financing for staffing, operating, and maintaining new developed

areas and facilities. Rarely are operating budgets appropriately increased for staffing and maintenance of newareas. Once capital projects receive funding, administrators must immediately begin searching for creativerevenue sources to operate and maintain them.32 If administrators are not successful in identifying alternativeresources, they must staff and operate new areas and facilities with current budgets.

4) Spending PrioritiesA fourth issue facing local parks and recreation is spending priorities. Like most government services at

the local level, parks and recreation departments have limited funding to meet growing needs of culturallydiverse communities. Local departments are finding it more difficult to provide equal opportunity for leisureexperiences to all people. Often they sacrifice majority needs to meet minority needs, such as offering pro-grams for people with disabilities, “at-risk” teens, or the homeless. Today’s local departments must makedifficult choices for the use of their limited public financial resources.

5) Crime and ViolenceThe last issue is crime and violence, Almost every local community in America has been impacted by

crimes, including vandalism, gang-related activity, and substance abuse. Unfortunately, many crimes occur inpublic parks and recreation areas. Local parks and recreation officials must continuously look for sensibleways to keep parks safe.

32A current example of a creative funding source is the sale of licensing rights by cities to corporate sponsors, currently underway in LosAngeles and Buffalo, and proposed in New York City (Hurt 1997). In Los Angeles, county lifeguards all wear the same official swimwear.In New York one official said, “There’s no reason why all the trash cans in New York City parks can’t bear the same logo, but we’re notgoing to put a [corporate sponsor] name on Central Park.”


Local Recreation Facilities and SitesFollowing the Beeler study, the NRPA sponsored another project to study the amounts and types of

recreation facilities and sites provided by local governments (PKF Consulting, 1995). The purpose was togather baseline data against which local departments could compare themselves for planning purposes. Thestudy design was to sample the same 1,500 recreation and park agencies as in the Beeler study. The stratifiedsample assured representation from agencies serving both large and small populations, from four regions ofthe United States, and from a variety of municipal, county, and special district governments. The 12-pagequestionnaire was returned by 520 agencies, a 35 percent response rate. One section of the questionnaire wasdevoted to inventory of facilities, fields and courts, passive recreation space, and park areas. The specificitems identified under these four headings give a good indication of the diversity of resources provided bylocal governments?

1. Facilities-Amphitheater, archery range (outdoor), badminton court, skeet and trap range, golf drivingrange, miniature golf course, Par-3 9-hole golf course, Par-3 18-hole golf course, 9-hole standard golf course,18-hole standard golf course, equestrian center, ice rink (outdoor/convertible), swimming pool (outdoor),waterparks, l/4 miles/meter running track, marina, boat ramp, camping areas (overnight, RV, and tent), his-torical/cultural sites.

2. Fields/Courts-Little League baseball fields, adult baseball/softball fields, basketball courts (outdoor), fieldhockey fields, soccer fields, football fields, handball courts (outdoor), tennis courts, sand volleyball courts,outdoor multiple recreation courts (basketball, volleyball, tennis, soccer).

3. Passive recreation space-beach areas, lakes, jogging/bicycling trails, hiking/equestrian trails, snowmobileand cross-country ski trails.

4. Park areas-Mini-park (servicing a limited number of streets in a neighborhood), neighborhood park (ser-vicing several small clusters of residential areas), community park (servicing an identifiable group of neigh-borhoods equating to a community area), metro/regional park (servicing a region or metropolitan area).

Table III.24 shows the percentages of agencies by region, serving fewer than 50,000 people, that provideddifferent types of outdoor recreation resources. Table III.25 does the same for agencies serving 50,000 ormore people. 34 The proportion of agencies providing passive recreation space and four kinds of park areas isevidence of the role of local government in outdoor recreation resources. Larger agencies (Table 111.25) weremore likely than the smaller agencies to provide all five kinds of passive recreation spaces. For example,nationwide, large agencies are more than twice as likely as smaller ones to provide hiking and equestriantrails and almost three times as likely to provide snowmobile and cross-country ski trails. The difference doesnot necessarily reflect a lower demand for these resources in smaller cities and counties, but indicates betterability by larger agencies to provide more recreation resources.

J3The questionnaire listed a variety of indoor and outdoor resources, but only outdoor facilities and courts are included in here.

34The NRPA study actually broke population into 10 separate categories, but low numbers in many categories left many proportionsstatistically unreliable. Fifty-thousand is a good dividing point between ‘large’ and ‘small’ populations and is the number traditionallyused by the Census Bureau to define metropolitan areas.


Table 111.24: Estimated Percentage of Local Government Agencies Serving Populations Under 50,000 thatProvided Selected Outdoor Recreation Resources by National Recreation and Park Association Region, 1994

NRPA Region’

Qpe of Recreation Resource

Passive Recreation SpaceBeach areasLakesJogging/Bicycling trailsHiking/Equestrian trailsSnowmobile andCross-country trails

Park AreasMiniNeighborhoodCommunityMetro/Regional

Northeast North Central South West U.S. Total(n=80)2 (n=114) (n=lll) (n=66) (n=371)

41.3 22.8 18.0 19.7 24.837.5 45.6 31.5 36.4 38.041.3 59.6 54.0 60.6 54.218.8 24.6 16.2 34.8 22.6

8.8 17.5 0.0 3.0 7.8

58.8 70.2 55.0 71.2 63.368.8 78.1 63.1 83.3 72.578.8 89.5 79.3 81.1 82.716.3 31.6 27.9 31.8 27.2

‘The NRPA regions used in this study are different from the regions reported elsewhere in this book. SeeAppendix III.4 for a list of states comprising the NRPA regions.

Sample size of local recreation and park agencies.

Source: PKF Consulting. (1995). Locul Pm-k und Recreation Facilities and Sites. Arlington, VA: NationalRecreation and Park Association.

Table 111.25: Estimated Percentage of Local Government Agencies Serving Populations 50,000 and Over thatProvided Selected Outdoor Recreation Resources by National Recreation and Park Association Region, 1994

NRPA Region’

Type of Recreation Resource

Passive Recreation SpaceBeach areasLakesJogging/Bicycling trailsHiking/Equestrian trailsSnowmobile andCross-country trails

Park AreasMiniNeighborhoodCommunityMetro/Regional

Northeast North Central South West U.S. Total(n=22)* (n=40) (n=47) (n=40) (n= 149)

50.0 32.5 29.8 37.5 35.559.1 47.5 66.0 57.7 57.763.6 65.0 74.5 72.5 69.836.4 60.0 34.0 70.0 51.0

27.3 42.5 4.3 15.0 20.8

50.0 55.0 63.8 77.5 63.168.2 60.0 74.5 75.0 69.872.7 75.0 93.6 82.5 82.640.9 65.0 78.7 75.0 68.5

‘The NRPA regions used in this study are different from the regions reported elsewhere in this book. SeeAppendix III.4 for a list of states comprising the NRPA regions.

Sample size of local recreation and park agencies.

Source: PKF Consulting. (1995). Local Pm-k und Recreation Facilities and Sires. Arlington, VA: NationalRecreation and Park Association.


Jogging and bicycling trails are the most common resource for both small and large agencies in allregions. Lakes are also common among large agencies, but less so among small agencies. Hiking and eques-trian trails are less common in the South for both small and large agencies, but more common in the West.Beaches managed by both small and large local agencies are more common by a considerable margin in theNortheast. As expected, snowmobiling and cross-country ski trails are much more common in the Northeastand North Central Regions and almost nonexistent in the South. Most snowmobile and ski trails in the Westtend to be on federal and state, rather than local government lands.

Except for Metro/Regional Parks, the park areas are very similar for small and large agencies. About 63percent of agencies have mini-parks, 70 percent have neighborhood parks, and 82 percent have communityparks. A much higher percentage of large agencies manage metro/regional parks, both nationally and in eachregion. More agencies, both small and large, manage community parks than neighborhood parks, althoughthis may be a matter of nomenclature change.

The NRPA study also examined general trends in additions of facilities and sites in the previous fiveyears. The report mentions that fields and courts, passive recreation space, and park areas have been addedto local agencies at a greater rate than both recreation facilities and water-related facilities. Added passiverecreation space and park areas included, but were not limited to: trails, conservation areas, open space,playgrounds, tot land, mini-parks, neighborhood parks, multi-parks, and waterfront passive green-span (PKFConsulting, 1995).

The NRPA study conducted by Godbey, Graefe, and James (1992) reported that 72 percent of the 1,305respondents to a nationwide telephone survey said they lived within walking distance of a public park. Fur-ther, 79 percent said they had used either recreation or park services in the past 12 months. Most of theseindividuals said they used only parks (49 percent), while a very small percentage said they used only recre-ation services (4 percent). The remainder said they used both parks and recreation services within the lastyear. When the question was altered to include participation by a member of the household, the proportionusing local recreation and park resources rose to 88 percent.

Outdoor Recreation in Urban Areas

Recreation in urban areas is typically characterized by highly developed parks, athletic fields, play-grounds, golf courses, tennis courts, and the like. But most local government recreation and park agenciesalso manage open space or undeveloped areas for passive outdoor recreation. Much of this land is preserved ingreenway corridors or trails corridors. Often, urban recreation and park agencies provide a balance betweenhighly developed areas and quieter, more natural areas. No one has inventoried the amount of natural orundeveloped land managed by local government. Local recreation and park agencies that are managed asSpecial Districts, rather than as municipal or county departments, frequently emphasize natural resourcesand conservation over more intensive recreation. Special districts are authorized in several states, but mostnotably in Illinois, Ohio, California, and Michigan.

The following two articles overview outdoor recreation in urban and metropolitan America. The first,“Urban Outdoor Recreation,” discusses issues and trends based on the work of the USDA Forest Serviceresearch unit, Managing Forest Environments for Urbanites, based in Chicago. The second article, “OutdoorRecreation in a Special Recreation District: Cleveland Metroparks,” is a case study of one of the premierspecial districts in the United States.

Urban Outdoor Recreation

(By John F. Dwyer, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Evanston IL)

Introduction“Urban outdoor recreation” often conjures up singular images of sports in an urban park. More careful

study reveals a wide spectrum of settings and experiences, and strong interrelationships between recreationresources and other important components of the urban system.


Si&rificance

Opportunities for outdoor recreation in urban areas are critical to the health and well-being of urbanresidents. The high value that urban residents place on urban outdoor recreation is partly due to the sharpcontrast that it offers to other aspects of urban life. A wide cross-section of the urban population takes advan-tage of these opportunities, including many individuals who do not visit more remote park and forest settings.While it is difficult to estimate the amount of outdoor recreation that takes place in urban areas; with 80percent of the U.S. population living, working, and spending most of its leisure time in urban areas; it is clearthat the vast majority of outdoor recreation in the U.S. occurs in urban areas.

Settings

Outdoor recreation settings in urban areas range from backyards, streets, and sidewalks in the central-city to greenways on the urban fringe (Dwyer, 1990; Gobster & Dickhut, 1995; Gobster, 1995). All are keycomponents of the intricate network of urban greenspace. Urban parks are often a setting for historical,architectural, and cultural attractions. From symphony concerts and museum exhibits to sculpture and mu-rals to drama and dance, urban parks are showcases for the cultural treasures of the city. Urban parks alsoserve as “free” space-one of the few places in a city where access and use are not tightly controlled.

ExDeriences

Urban outdoor recreation experiences are diverse, from extensive hiking and nature study to briefoutings for fitness. Close proximity allows outings to be woven into the daily routine, such as early morning,lunchtime, or after-work walks in a nearby park. Frequent use of the urban outdoor environment is often animportant component of everyday life. Urban outdoor settings may also host large group outings, includingextended family, neighborhood, business, and other groups who are able to assemble because of short traveldistances and the availability of large areas with which they are familiar. Opportunities for solitude may alsobe found in many urban areas in the form of quiet places to walk, bicycle, fish, or observe nature. Urbanrecreation areas introduce people to natural settings, allowing them to observe and learn about nature.

Management

Management and use of urban outdoor recreation resources are linked to a complex and interrelatedmatrix of diverse urban land uses, ownerships, and infrastructure. Recreation resources are often integralcomponents of a wide range of efforts to improve the quality of urban life, particularly health (Hull & Ulrich,1992), environmental quality (Dwyer, et al., 1992), and education (Simmons, 1996).

Forces For ChangeChange is the hallmark of all systems, but it is especially pervasive in the urban environment where

there is so much interrelated activity. Of particular significance for urban recreation are changes in land useand management, infrastructure, populations, recreation resource use, scientific knowledge, underservedpopulations, concern for personal safety, fiscal constraints, and partnerships and collaboration.

Land Use and Manafement

Changes in the use and management of land throughout urban systems have important implications forurban outdoor recreation opportunities. Land and water resources no longer needed for other uses are be-coming available for recreation. Examples include river corridors, railroad rights of way, and former manufac-turing sites. Improvements in air and water quality, as well as cleanup of open spaces (including “brownfields”)are also creating new or enhanced recreation opportunities. These physical changes in the urban landscapeare changing public perceptions about recreation opportunities in the city. For example, rivers and steamsthat were formerly regarded as open sewers (e.g., sections of the Chicago River) are becoming popular loca-tions for boating and fishing, and riverbanks are becoming favored locations for bird watching and hiking(Westphal & Gobster 1995). At the same time, expanding needs for a wide range of land uses in the urbanenvironment often threaten to displace recreation resources.


Infrastructure

Urban outdoor recreation resources and associated greenspaces are increasingly seen by urban plan-ners as critical components of the urban infrastructure with important implications for transportation (bi-cycle trails), health, air quality, stormwater management, microclimate, noise abatement, and visual quality(Dwyer, et al., 1992). Aging infrastructure in parks, transportation, utilities, and other resources is creatingsignificant challenges for managers and planners. The rebuilding of infrastructure is creating new opportuni-ties for partnerships and shared responsibilities that can enhance recreation. Bicycle trails, for example, arebeing built along new roads. Bridge construction is providing opportunities for accommodating trails above,alongside, or under new or renovated structures. In many of America’s large cities in the Northeast andMidwest, much infrastructure was constructed 50 to 100 years ago. Life spans of this infrastructure are beingexceeded. For example, in Chicago’s lakefront park system, which includes nearly one-half of the city’s parkland, is built on filled areas of Lake Michigan. Over eight miles of the shoreline revetment that holds this landin place is predicted to fail in the next 10 years. The estimated cost for reconstruction is nearly $300 million.

Ponulations

Changes in the character and location of the urban population are bringing important changes in urbanoutdoor recreation. Increased aging and racial and ethnic diversity are influencing the outdoor recreationactivities, settings, and programs that urban residents want (Dwyer 1994, 1995b). Immigrants continue tosettle first in urban centers, bringing in a constant flow of new ideas and practices to urban recreation areas.Population shifts with having important implications for management of recreation resources include move-ment of people out of some areas, gentrification, changing composition of neighborhoods, and expansion ofthe population on the urban fringe. With these changes, managers of recreation sites are finding that thenumber, character, preferences, and needs of the people they serve continue to change.

Public interest is increasing in the environment, physical fitness, volunteerism (Westphal, 1993), andpreservation and restoration of historic, cultural, and natural resources (Dwyer & Stewart, 1995). Resultsinclude new and sometimes conflicting demands for recreation resources. Increasing demands and conflictsare also being generated by the growing popularity of new recreation equipment, such as in-line skates,mountain bicycles, climbing walls, and facilities for indoor golf, indoor skiing, and indoor surfing.

Scientific KnowledPe

As more is learned about the contribution of recreation to health and well-being (Driver, Brown, &Peterson, 1991; Hull & Ulrich, 1992), public, private, and not-for-profit groups are giving increased attentionto providing urban recreation opportunities. As people appreciate the benefits of recreation and other re-sources, more cooperative efforts are undertaken. Recreation is included with education, environmental quality,and public health as a significant urban activity. New knowledge about the role of greenspace in improving thequality of the urban environment is also bringing increased attention to the contribution of urban outdoorrecreation areas to air and water quality (Dwyer, et al., 1992). At the same time, urban ecosystems are begin-ning to contribute to scientific knowledge as laboratories for understanding how a diverse cross section ofpeople interact with forest resources (Dwyer & Schroeder, 1994).

Underserved Potmlations

Public programs are focusing on providing recreation and other important services to people who arecurrently “underserved.” Such people include urban residents, and particularly those living in inner-cities.Increased public concern over “environmental justice” is helping to place a high priority on efforts to over-come physical, economic, and social barriers to participation in outdoor recreation.


Safe tv

Concerns about personal safety in urban parks are being addressed. Solutions are reflected in sitelocation, design (Schroeder & Anderson, 1984), management, programming, and neighborhood involvement.“Park Watch” programs are becoming popular.

Fiscal Restraints

Limited funds make it increasingly difficult to establish and maintain urban outdoor recreation re-sources (Dwyer, 199%; Stewart, 1995). Results include limited land acquisitions and developments, heavybacklogs of maintenance, and searches for more cost effective ways to provide urban outdoor recreationopportunities. One strategy is to provide greenway linkages to existing park and recreation resources. An-other is to recycle land in existing government inventories. Parking lots, schoolyard, public grounds, andvacant lots are being “greened” with the combined assistance of volunteer groups and government resources.Shortfalls of public funds for operating outdoor recreation areas are generating significant interest in moreand higher fees, concession operations, and privatization of facilities and programs.

Partnershins and Collaborative Efforts

Greenways, rivers, and trails are being given increased attention as ecologists highlight their role inconnecting otherwise fragmented landscapes (Gobster, 1995). Management of the urban landscape calls forcollaborative planning across metropolitan areas and focuses attention on the coordinated management ofinterrelated resources among urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas. Scarcities of fiscal resources andstaff are often stimulating collaboration.

The Years AheadUrban outdoor recreation managers are witnessing and leading exciting changes and urban recreation

is getting increasing attention. Significant changes in the urban environment have created difficult chal-lenges, and new partnerships and other collaborative approaches are being created to enhance recreationopportunities across the urban landscape.

Increased Emphasis

Public, private, and not-for-profit groups will increase their efforts to provide urban recreation becausethey know that outdoor recreation can enhance the quality of urban life. Many people are strongly committedto serve the “underserved” urban populations, and increased attention is focused on the wide range of physi-cal, biological, and social benefits provided by urban greenspace.

The ChanPinP Urban Environment

Changes in the urban infrastructure, land use, distribution of the people over the landscape, and “new”recreation activities and technologies will continue to be important forces for change in recreation resources.New recreation opportunities will become available in conjunction with improvements in the quality of theurban environment (air, water, and land). Opportunities also will arise as land and water resources previouslyused for commercial and industrial purposes become available for public use.

The Challenees

The most difficult issues will often center on: (1) allocation of resources among various outdoor recre-ation opportunities across the urban system, (2) serving increasingly diverse populations, and (3) the relativeemphasis to place on natural resources, facilities, physical fitness, historic preservation, education, and othercomponents of recreation resource management in a particular area.


Collaborative Planning

Recreation resources will be managed in context with other important resources in the urban system.Bicycle and walking paths will be included in plans for streets and highways. Offices and factories will incor-porate fitness trails and active and passive recreation areas in their site plans. Schools and colleges will makemore extensive use of outdoor campuses for their activities. Neighborhood groups will play an increasinglysignificant role in planning for and management of local resources. Urban greenspace will be an integral partof comprehensive strategies to manage stormwater, air quality, microclimate, and esthetic quality. We will seeincreased public involvement in resource planning, management, and day-to-day activities. Collaborativepartnerships will multiply. Many of the partnerships will involve public, private, and not-for-profit groups atthe federal, state, and local levels working to develop cost-effective strategies to enhance opportunities foroutdoor recreation across the urban landscape.

Outdoor Recreation in a Special Recreation District: Cleveland Metroparks

(By Robert D. Bixler, Research and Program Evaluation Manager, Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland, OH)

Cleveland Metroparks is composed of 14 reservations situated in the densely populated metropolitanarea of northeastern Ohio with 2.5 million residents. Its largely undeveloped woodland reservations total19,650 acres and receive over 40 million visits a year. Cleveland Metroparks provides opportunities for tradi-tional outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, fishing, swimming, nonmotorizedboating and canoeing, horseback riding, sledding, cross country skiing and scenic driving. Other popularrecreation activities provided by the park district include golfing, bicycling on paved trails, and physicalfitness trails. The park district has a strong educational emphasis providing nature center exhibits, environ-mental education and outdoor skills programs to over 400,000 children and adults annually. Since 1975,ClevelandMetroparks has also operated Cleveland Metroparks Zoo.

Established in 1917, the park district is an independent government agency operating as a separatepolitical subdivision of the state of Ohio. The mission of the park district, which is defined by the state lawthat provides for its existence, is the conservation of the natural resources. The annual budget of 45 milliondollars comes primarily from property taxes, although 32 percent is generated by user fees and federal, stateand local grants. Approximately every 10 years, residents of the tax district have the opportunity to supportproperty tax levies that exclusively support the park district.

Typically, in large metropolitan arcas, there are an immense number of choices of leisure activities.Cleveland Metroparks compctcs for attention with several distinguished museums, recreation and fitnesscenters, and an array of private amusement parks, golf courses and other educational and recreation facilities.Aggressive marketing of facilities and programs serves to constantly remind area residents that the parkdistrict is one of their rccrcation options. Public service announcements, paid advertising, and special eventpromotions have become a routine part of marketing Cleveland Metroparks, along with nontraditional promo-tional methods that target users who do not pay attention to mass media. Special events, particularly week-end festivals, have provided incentive for many infrequent users of the park district to choose to visit again.

Urban Green SpaceParks are becoming increasingly landlocked and urban open space for new reservations is difficult to

acquire. In Cleveland, regional parks are needed to better serve tax payers living in areas that are not nearexisting open space. Similarly, with development encroaching on the reservations, protecting water qualityand natural resources is becoming difficult, Since 1985, the park district has acquired two large parks fromthe city of Cleveland in under served communities. Another strategy for establishing parks is negotiation ofrecreation easements with industry and private landowners either near existing reservations or to create newparks. Cleveland Metroparks has recently developed a new X0-acre Ohio and Erie Canal Reservation, withthe cooperation of American Steel and Wire, BP Oil, ALCOA, Centerior Energy, and the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources. Additionally, partnerships between private landowners and Cleveland Metroparks haveprovided opportunities to acquire important conservation easements in existing parks at minimal cost, pro-viding additional protection of water quality and wildlife.


Outdoor RecreationNew high-tech recreation activities like mountain biking, rock climbing and in-line skating provide

opportunities for serving new outdoor enthusiasts, but also require new management strategies. Historically,introduction to wildland recreation activities and traditions has been passed from parent to child. These newhigh-tech activities are promoted by product manufacturers of the recreation technology, rather than throughtraditional family socialization. Because Cleveland Metroparks is within a large urban area, the park district isoften where novices try these new activities for the first time. Due to inexperience, these new outdoorrecreationists tend to be accident-prone and are a source of conflict with traditional park users. In someinstances, the activity may increase natural resource impacts. With mountain bikes, Cleveland Metroparkshas taken a wait-and-see approach, asking clubs and organizations promoting mountain biking to first estab-lish codes of conduct and a land ethic among their members, before these activities are allowed in the parkdistrict. Through its Institute of the Great Outdoors, the park district does provide opportunities forrecreationists to learn the techniques and ethics of both new and traditional wildland recreation activities.

Like many park facilities established in the early part of the 20th century, much of the infrastructurewas built by the Civilian Conservation Corp in a short period of time during the Great Depression. Many ofthese structures are now showing signs of wear and must be replaced or rehabilitated. Over half the bridges aswell as a system of river fords in the Park District need immediate renovation. The costs of infrastructurerepair and replacement will impact capital budgets for many years.

The park district is often called the Emerald Necklace because of its striking scenery, fauna and flora,and historical and cultural attractions. Though often described as “state park” quality, Cleveland Metroparkshas initiated a weekend festival program to entice people to visit reservations further from their homes. Thesesubstantial educational and outdoor recreation festivals attract large crowds, up to 20,000 people. Festivalparticipants range from 30 to 50 percent first-time visitors. These events have increased the number of reser-vations area residents regularly visit.

Twenty years ago, sightings of wildlife such as wild turkey and deer were infrequent. Viewing wildlife,particularly deer, has become a major motive for scenic driving through the reservations. But with no hunt-ing, a lack of large predators and optimal wildlife habitat, populations of racoon, deer, and other wildlife are atan all-time high. Picnickers report being surrounded at their tables by racoons begging for food. Car collisionswith deer have increased, and some reservations in the park district are almost devoid of ground plants andunderstory trees from overgrazing by deer. Cleveland Metroparks has changed its management of refuse,established “no feeding of wildlife policies,” and implemented a multi-strategy education program to altervisitor/wildlife interactions. The park district may need to begin culling deer to adequately protect park flora.

Cleveland Metroparks has increased the level of services provided, at little additional cost, throughhosting not-for-profit agencies operations on Park District property. For example, Girl Scout cabins, campsfor children with disabilities, historic preservation societies, a performing arts theater, a nature center andplanetarium, and a fine arts and crafts exhibition and education center are all facilities and programs pro-vided on Cleveland Metroparks properties. These organizations provide high quality services to approximately275,000 people each year. Cleveland Metroparks has established a planning position to develop a GeographicInformation System (GIS) for northeastern Ohio. This sophisticated computer mapping function providesopportunities to simultaneously evaluate all aspects of land planning, including transportation systems, natu-ral resources, and recreational use. This capability, combined with a research staff focusing on evaluation ofservices and regional recreation demand, provides a systematic base of information that contributes to re-sponsible decision making.

TrendsOver the next 10 to 15 years, national and regional trends will have an impact on Cleveland Metroparks

service to area residents. Effectively responding to changing demands requires careful planning and foresight.A trend that could negatively impact Cleveland Metroparks ability to provide high quality service is the de-creasing population in the tax district. Urban sprawl is resulting in current residents of the service areamoving to adjoining counties. Many of these people will continue to use Cleveland Metroparks, since many ofthe reservations are near the outer boundaries of the tax district. However, these enthusiastic users will nolonger be able to vote in support of tax levies or directly contribute to the cost of maintaining the parksthrough property taxes. Alternative revenue sources will need to be evaluated. The population in the taxdistrict is expected to increasingly reflect larger percentages of minorities. Current usage levels of ClevelandMetroparks facilities by minority populations is low relative to their proportion in the general population.This is a function of most of the reservations not being close to urban centers where many minorities reside.Also, minority participation rates in outdoor recreation activities have been extremely low.


Two strategies for involving more minorities in outdoor recreation activities are being implemented; theimpact of these initiatives will become apparent within the next generation. First, new reservations are beingestablished closer to urban areas to make parklands more accessible on a daily basis. Frequent visitation willhelp to establish patterns of regular park usage among greater numbers of urbanites. Second, programs forurban youth are being started that introduce them to outdoor recreation activities in meaningful ways. Nolonger is the park district satisfied with short, one-contact programs that superficially teach a single skill.Programs that introduce children and youth to outdoor recreation focus on more than the obvious psychomo-tor skills necessary to participate in an activity. Park district staff strive for multiple contacts with the sameyouth, and are aware that there are many peripheral attitudes and skills needed to successfully carry out anactivity after the initial introduction. Staff are increasingly aware of the need of these youths for a supportivesocial group that shares interest in the outdoor recreation activity. The park district even has a social scientistworking on identifying key socialization forces among families active in wildland recreation. These socializa-tion forces will be mimicked in programs for youth from families uninvolved in outdoor recreation.

Changes in work schedules and year-round school may require changes in schedules of programmingand staff deployment. The park district is already seeing significantly heavier visitation on Fridays than otherweekdays. This is probably due to four-day work weeks and eight-days on, four-days off work patterns. Non-traditional work schedules and changes in school calendars may create a different yearly visitation profile,with decreasing activity in the summer and increased activity in the other seasons. Changes in school yearcalendars, in which students go to school longer or have long breaks scattered throughout the year, will resultin the need to redistribute programming that was traditionally offered only during the summer and often byseasonal staff. Major changes in staffing may be required to meet increased demands in traditionally lowvisitation periods of the year. The possibilities for serving school-age students, who will have large numbers ofshorter breaks from school rather than one long break, will provide a welcome challenge. Changes in theregion will require a responsive management style to continue to provide quality outdoor recreation experi-ences for area residents while protecting natural resources. Cleveland Metroparks must respond to trends, butas a major recreation and educational provider in northeastern Ohio serving nearly 80 percent of area resi-dents, it-will also shape recreation demand.

Greenways

Greenways, broadly defined as open-space corridors serving recreation and conservation purposes,may be the most significant trend affecting local outdoor recreation in the United States over the past decade.The term “greenway” was recently coined, but the concepts and ideas go back to Olmsted and the mid-19thcentury (Little, 1990). It was not until the recommendations of the President’s Commission on AmericansOutdoors in 1987, however, that the concept developed into a widely-recognized “movement.”

The greenway movement springs from local, ground-up, grass-roots efforts of citizens and communityactivists to protect linear green spaces close to where they live. The President’s Commission spoke about“lighting a prairie fire of local action” for greenways. One conservative estimate referred to over 500 activegreenway projects in the United States in the mid-1990s (Searns, 1995). Another trait of the movement is itsemergence because of, not in spite of, the lack of government funds devoted to open space protection (Little,1990). The decline of the Land and Water Conservation Fund starting in the early 1980s and other cutbacksat federal and state levels, necessitated local approaches to land conservation and recreation planning. Fed-eral, state, and regional government agencies typically provide expertise, coordination, and incentives tolocal groups (Hardt & Hastings, 1995).

An important appeal of greenways is their multipurpose nature (Fabos, 1995). In addition to providingrecreation opportunities (walking, jogging, bicycling, nature study, and other activities), greenways protectnature, provide environmental benefits, and protect historic and cultural heritage. Fabos (1995) notes thatgreenways are one solution to the recreational needs of our increasingly dispersed and decentralized metro-politan populations.

Because of urban sprawl, large parks are not as effective in serving the local population as they used tobe. Greenways are more effective at serving large, spatially distributed populations because of their linearnature. This advantage is summarized by two characteristics: linkages and “edge” (Little, 1990). Linkagesrepresent the connections greenways provide between places and edge is the increased perimeter, and thusaccess, that a linear space provides over a more compact space with the same area. The linear nature ofgreenways highlights the importance of coordination and partnerships between various landowners and con-stituencies. Outspoken local leadership often is necessary to bring diverse groups together and build advo-cacy and political support (Hardt & Hastings, 1995).


The growth and populariof greenways are amongthe most significant trendsin outdoor recreation inthe 1990s. Photo courtesyof Carter J. Beb.

A number of national, regional, and grass-roots organizations have assumed leadership roles workingtogether and with local citizen and government groups to develop and protect greenways. One prominentnational group is The Conservation Fund, which operates the American Greenways Program, an umbrellaorganization promoting greenways at the national, state, regional, and local levels. This program providesprofessional and technical assistance to citizens, private landowners, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations,and government agencies. It also administers a grants program with single awards up to $2,500 to local greenwayprojects.

Greenways: America’s Natural Connections

(By Edward T. McMahon, American Greenways Program Director, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA)

“A connected system of parks is manifestly far more complete and useful than a series of isolated parks.”

-Frederick Law Olmsted, 1903

IntroductionOver the past century, America has invested large sums of money in our federal and state parks, forests,

and preserves. While we have the finest national park system in the world, most of these parks tend to be farfrom where people live and are limited in their ability to meet the growing diversity of America’s recreationand conservation needs. Increasingly, outdoor recreation occurs close to home, in or near the cities andsuburbs where 80 percent of Americans live and work. As a result, in 1987, the President’s Commission onAmericans Outdoors recommended the establishment of a national “network of greenways to provide peoplewith access to open space close to where they live, and to link together the rural and urban open space in theAmerican landscape.” The Commission also called for a “prairie fire of local action” to implement the greenwayconcept. Today, this prairie fire has ignited, and greenways are being developed in thousands of communitiesacross the country.

Defining Greenwaysgreenway (gren’-wa) n. 1. A linear open space established along either a natural corridor, such asa riverfront, stream valley, or ridgeline, or overland along a railroad right-of-way converted torecreational use, a canal, a scenic road, or other route. 2. Any natural or landscaped course for


pedestrian or bicycle passage. 3. An open-space connector linking parks, nature reserves, culturalfeatures, or historic sites with each other and with populated areas. 4. Locally, certain strip orlinear parks designated as a parkway or greenbelt. [American neologism: green + way; originobscure]

-Charles Little, Greenwuysfor Americu, 19’90

Greenways are corridors of protected open space managed for conservation and recreation purposes.Greenways typically follow linear landscape features such as rivers, streams, and ridgelines. They are alsobeing created along canals, abandoned railroad lines, utility corridors, country roads, and other man-madefeatures. Greenways are, of course, not new. The concept grew out of the work of landscape architect FrederickLaw Olmstead, who was the designer of some of the nation’s first linear parks. In 1869, Olmstead designed aplan for Riverside, Illinois that incorporated an extensive greenbelt along the Des Plaines River. Olmstead feltthat the river structure provided a better entry into this Chicago suburb than the highway. He later createdthe “emerald necklace” in Boston which was a series of parks connected by wetlands, streams, and parks. Theconcept evolved with the development of the Appalachian Trail in 1921, the urban parkways of the 1930s andthe post-World War II greenbelt concept. The term itself was not used until at least 1959 and did not come intowidespread use until the 1970s. In his book, Greenwuysfor Americu, author Charles Little identifies fivemajor types of greenways:

1. Urban riverside greenways, usually created as part of (or instead of) a redevelopment program alongneglected, often run-down, city waterfronts.

2. Recreational greenways, featuring paths and trails of various kinds, often of relatively long distance,based on natural corridors, as well as man-made features such as abandoned rail lines, canals, or otherpublic rights-of-way.

-3. . Ecologically significant natural corridors, usually along rivers and streams and sometimes ridgelines, toprovide for wildlife migration and habitat protection as well as nature study.

4. Scenic and historic routes, usually along a road or highway (or sometimes a waterway), the most repre-sentative of which make an effort to provide pedestrian access along the route or at least places to alightfrom a car.

5. Comprehensive greenway systems or networks, usually based on natural landforms such as valleys andridges, but sometimes simply an opportunistic assemblage of greenways and open spaces of variouskinds to create a regional green infrastructure.

Benefits of GreenwaysGreenways provide a multitude of benefits for people, wildlife, and the economy. More expansive and

flexible than traditional, more confirmed parks, greenways can provide a community trail system for linearforms of outdoor recreation such as hiking, jogging, bicycling, rollerblading, horseback riding, cross countryskiing, or just plain strolling. Further, greenways provide lifelines for wildlife moving from one isolated naturalarea to another. They can help to preserve biodiversity and wildlife habitat by protecting environmentally-sensitive land along rivers, streams, and wetlands. They can protect water quality by providing a buffer againsturban run-off and non-point source pollution. Greenways can soften and direct urban growth, and they canact as outdoor classrooms-a close-to-home way to get children out of school and into nature.

Greenways can also stimulate the economy by providing an array of economic and quality of life ben-efits. Numerous studies demonstrate that linear parks can increase nearby property values, which can in turnincrease local tax revenues. Spending by residents on greenway-related activities helps support recreation-oriented businesses and employment, as well as other businesses that are patronized by greenway users.Greenways often provide new business opportunities and locations for commercial activities like bed andbreakfast establishments, and bicycle and canoe rental shops. Greenways are often major tourist attractionsthat generate expenditures on lodging, food, and recreation-oriented services. Finally, greenways can reducepublic expenditures by lowering the costs associated with flooding, storm water management, and other natu-ral hazards.


In summary, grecnways are a cost-effective, multi-purpose concept that allows public agencies to linkexisting parks, historic sites, and natural areas into a network of green space with numerous environmental,recreational, and economic benefits.

Current SituationGreenways can be found in all states and regions of the country. Today there are an estimated 5,000

greenways already in existence across the United States. These vary from large multi-state greenways like theAppalachian Trail or Blue Ridge Parkway, to extensive riverfront promenades like the Riverfront Park inBattle Creek, Michigan or the American River Parkway in Sacramento, California, to small streamside parkslike the Happy Creek Greenway in Front Royal, Virginia.

Greenways vary in size, scope, and nature. Some are ecological corridors with little or no public access,like the Pinhook Swamp Wildlife Movement Corridor in Florida; others, like the Minute Man Trail in Boston,Massachusetts, attract millions of visitors each year. The scope and widespread nature of greenways is illus-trated by the following statistics.

Rail-Trails-The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy reports that, nationwide, more than 900 abandoned rail-road lines totaling almost c),500 linear miles have been converted into multi-purpose linear parks. These trailsnow receive more than 100 million users each year, including cyclists and pedestrians. Michigan has the mostmiles of rail trail. Florida has the greatest number of urban rail trails. Washington has the most suburbanmileage. The longest rail trail is Missouri’s Katy Trail at almost 200 miles. When completed, Nebraska’s Cow-boy Line Trail will be the longest at 321 miles.

Waterfronts-The Waterfront Center maintains files on over 1,000 waterfront promenades and linearparks located along rivers, streams, and harbors in the United States. Many of these waterfront parks areknown for their role in attracting tourists and fostering related economic development. For example, the SanAntonio Riverwalk is the leading tourist attraction in the state of Texas. The Augusta, Georgia Canal Projecthas leveraged more than $100 million in new waterfront development from a public investment of $8 millionin a riverfront walkway and park.

Save Our Streams-The Izaak Walton League reports that there are over 2,000 Save Our Streams projectsaround the country involving strcamside restoration, water quality monitoring, and riverside clean-up.

ISTEA-The Intcrmodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is the first federal transporta-tion law that explicitly acknowledges bicycling and walking as viable modes of transportation. This landmarklegislation has led to a dramatic increase in funding for greenway related projects including rail trails andother bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Surface Transportation Policy Project reports that over $1 billionhas been spent in the last six years on more than 3,000 projects involving greenways, railtrails, and otherbicycle and pedestrian facilities around the country.

National ISTEA Enhancement Funding for Non-motorized Transportation Facilities

Type of Facility

Rails-TrailsGreenway Trails*Other Bicycle andPedestrian facilities**Total

Federal Share(Millions S)

385562

2531,200

Number of Projects

8141,073

1,4433,330

“Greenway trails includes sidepaths and off-road trail and bikeway facilities that are not rail-trails.**Other bicycle & pedestrian facilities includes on-road bicycle facilities, overpasses, underpasses, pedes-trian sidewalks, plazas, etc.

National Park Service-In lc)c)6, the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program of the Na-tional Park Service provided technical assistance to 130 greenway projects in 46 states. These projects rangedfrom the development of a regional bikeway system for Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to creating 280 miles oftrails and seven new riverfront parks in the state of New York.

State and Regional Greenway SystemsSince l’#X~, more than a dozen states have embarked on efforts to plan, design, and implement state-


wide systems of greenways. For example, in Maryland the program is directed by a Maryland GreenwaysCommission made up of civic, business, and government leaders appointed by the governor. The commissionhas identified more than 900 miles of existing and 1,000 miles of proposed greenways. The program has anactive land acquisition component and the state has developed a Greenways Atlas that identifies existing andpotential greenway corridors in every county. Similar efforts have been initiated in Florida, Connecticut,Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. At the regionallevel, a majority of the nation’s major metropolitan areas have also embarked on the development of regional,multi-jurisdictional greenway systems. Some of the most advanced are in Portland, Chicago, Indianapolis,Kansas City, Chattanooga, Denver, and Boston.

New Directions and Future 7kendsA number of factors are combining to give great impetus to the~greenway movement. These factors

include watershed planning and whole ecosystem management, increased federal funding for bicycle andpedestrian facilities, the shift from an industrially-based economy to a service and higher tech economy thatplaces more emphasis on quality of life factors in corporate facility siting decisions, a growing concern aboutthe negative impacts of sprawl, the increased demand for close-to-home outdoor recreation facilities, thesearch for cost effective approaches for dealing with flood control, stormwater management and non-pointsource pollution, and finally a shift in consumer preferences regarding desired amenities in new home com-munities.

The greenway concept is a relatively new idea that integrates many established conservation, land useplanning, urban design and landscape architectural ideas, concepts and strategies. If all of the greenwayprojects that are currently planned or envisioned were completed, almost a third of the nation’s landscapewould be incorporated into an enormous system of greenways and natural infrastructure. Clearly greenwaysare an idea that has caught the imagination of citizens and officials all over the nation. This is primarilybecause greenway planning is a multi-purpose, multi-objective process that addresses concerns of ecologists,wildlife biologists, recreation planners and enthusiasts, tourism officials, as well as historic preservation andcommunity revitalization advocates.

Rails- to-!#ails

(By Hugh Morris, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, D.C.)

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) is another major organization deeply involved in the develop-ment and protection of greenways in the United States. Founded in 1986, RTC’s mission is to protect America’srailroad corridors which were, and still are, being abandoned at the rate of about 2,000 miles per year. Thisrate has remained fairly constant for several years. The recent mergers of several of the nation’s largest railcompanies may accelerate the abandonment of rail lines in the near future as the companies strive to estab-lish the most efficient networks for their business.

Rail infrastructure in the United States peaked in 1930 at about 300,000 miles. Today only half of thatremains in active use, Many of the corridors that have been abandoned are lost forever because the land hasreverted back to adjacent landowners. Railroads remain one of the most efficient ways to transport peopleand goods. However, reassembling these corridors for future rail use would be prohibitively expensive andtime consuming. Demand for rail transport on currently inactive corridors may reemerge in the future. Thus,preservation of the corridor may have long-term national benefits. Using corridors as trails keeps them intactand provides interim benefits to users.

The creation of rail-trails is primarily due to the efforts of local trail enthusiasts, citizens, local politi-cians, and business leaders who see an opportunity for a trail in their community and work to make it areality. RTC does not own any of the rail-trails, but supports the local trail development process by providingtechnical, legal, and policy assistance. RTC also safeguards and expands federal policies in support of rail-trails, such as the Railbanking Act of 1986 (Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act), which allows railcorridors to be “banked” for future rail use. Another federal program that aids trail development is the Trans-portation Enhancements funding from ISTEA, which funneled $1 billion to bicycle and pedestrian projects,including trails, between 1992 and 1997.

The number of rail-trails in the United States has grown tremendously since RTC’s founding. Many rail-trails predate the organization, but RTC now documents more than 900 rail-trails covering over 9,300 miles(Table 111.26). This mileage is equivalent to nearly one-fourth the length of the U.S. Interstate Highway Sys-tem. The pace of trail development shows no signs of slowing. RTC is currently tracking more than 1,100 rail-trail projects nationwide, representing nearly 18,000 more miles of trail (Table 111.26). Further, RTC has

I


assisted with the development of 41 trails alongside historic canals covering 685 miles (not included in therail-trail statistics).

Table 111.26: Number and Miles of Rail-Trails by Status, Allowable Uses, and Region, 1997

Rail-Trail Status and Number RegionAllowable Uses and Miles North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

statusOpen for Public Use Number 622 101 70 110 903

Miles 7,361 669 455 824 9,308Trail Projects Number 634 241 124 139 1,138Underway Miles 8,250 3,560 3,318 2,660 17,789

Allowable UsesWalking Number 544 90 64 102 800

Miles 6,178 636 438 769 8,021Horseback Riding Number 228 20 27 53 328

Miles 3,699 354.8 290 620 4,963Bicycling Number 259 48 39 61 407

Miles 3,106 328 274 280 3,988In-line Skating Number 131 38 28 50 247

Miles 1,200 266 167 251 1,884Mountain Biking Number 236 16 25 29 306

Miles 3,218 248 171 457 4,094Fishing Number 183 15 15 28 241

Miles 2,268 196 70 408 2,942Cross-Country Skiing Number 414 10 41 21 486

Miles 4,808 163 347 420 5,737Snowmobiling Number 193 0 12 2 207

Miles 4,081 0 176 38 4,294Wheelchair Accessible Number 24.5 49 38 61 393

Miles 3,031 362 279 309 3,982

Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Trails Database. May, 1997.

The North region dominates the supply of existing rail-trails in the United States (Figure 111.15). TheNorth accounts for 80 percent of the total rail-trail mileage and 70 percent of the trails. The states of Michi-gan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania alone make up almost half of the national trail mileage (48percent) and nearly one-third of the trails. The North also has the nation’s longest rail-trail (Missouri’s KatyTrail, 185 miles and still developing) and its busiest (Boston’s Minuteman Trail, used by more than two millionpeople annually). The Rocky Mountain region has the fewest trails and least trail mileage. Rail-trail projectsthat are not currently open to public use are also dominated by the North, but are much more evenly distrib-uted than existing rail-trails (Figure 111.16). The same is true for their mileage.


Figure 111.15: Counties with Existing Rail-Trails, 1997

Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy trails database. 1997

Figure 111.16: Counties with Rail-Trail Projects Not Yet Open for Public Use, 1997

Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy trails database. 1997.

As expected, walking is the most prevalent use, occurring on almost 90 percent of the trails (Table111.26). The next most common use is cross-country skiing, allowed on more than half of the trails nationwide,although most are in the North. Among types of trail use, snowmobiling is allowed (or suitable) on the leastnumber of trails, but the mileage of snowmobile trails is substantial, particularly in the North. There are nosuitable snowmobile trails in the South and only two in the Pacific Coast region.


Bicycling is also a popular and common use, but mountain biking is not allowed on as many trails.Mountain biking trails do comprise more mileage, however, which probably reflects the longer lengths of thesemostly unpaved, overland trails. The relatively small amount of trail mileage on which in-line skating is al-lowed probably reflects the limited number of paved trails, as much as it does use restrictions. Only aboutone-third of trails are either asphalt or concrete and they make up less than one-fourth of the mileage. Fishingand horseback riding are other recognized uses for which many trails are not appropriate or suitable due totheir location or surface. Wheelchairs are accommodated on about 44 percent of trails. Many unpaved trails,therefore, are classified as wheelchair accessible.

RTC recently shifted its strategic focus from corridor preservation and individual trail development toconnecting rail-trails into a nationwide system of trails and greenways. Of particular interest and concern isthe need to develop and expand trails in urban areas. Trails can play an important role in developing sustain-able communities by preserving green infrastructure, providing alternative transportation routes for non-motorized roads, and promoting economic development. Many urban areas now have the beginnings of trailsystems. The St. Louis region, for example, has a burgeoning trail network on both sides of the Missouri Riverthat is made up of 20 different trails, both short and long, urban and rural. Likewise, the Washington, D.C.area has several trails that originate in various suburbs and, like spokes on a wheel, connect those suburbs tothe city center. These trails are used by commuters as well as for recreation.

Nationally, the most significant development affecting rail-trails is the renewal of the federal transporta-tion legislation that has provided f&ids for more than 750 trails and trail projects. ISTEA was adopted in 1991and has provided significant funding for trails through the Transportation Enhancements and other programs.The Enhancements program set aside more than $1 billion for projects that enhanced the nation’s transporta-tion facilities for non-motorized vehicle modes, such as pedestrians and bicycles. The reauthorization of thislegislation occurred in October 1997.

On the legal front, Preseuult ‘us. the State ofVermont is challenging the viability of the federal railbankingstatute. While railbanking is a useful method for facilitating the preservation of a rail corridor, only about fivepercent of rail-trails are railbanked. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the railbankingstatute, but it remanded the decision of the land takings issue back to a lower court. This court recently ruledthat the railbanking law caused a land taking from the Preseaults and that they are entitled to compensationfor that taking. The next step is for the court to assess the damages due to the Preseaults.

While the outcome of ISTEA reauthorization and the Preseault case will have some bearing on thedevelopment of rail-trails, the number of rail-trails already in the project stage ensures that a steady stream ofnew trails will be opening all over the United States well into the future. Together, open and projected trailmiles sum to over 27,000 miles of (expected) trails in the United States. RTC’s database also contains anadditional 2,850 miles of trail that are connected to rail-trails but are not part of the abandoned rail lines (notincluded in Table 111.26). Although a comprehensive database of all greenway miles-including other types inaddition to rail-trails-does not exist, the number is easily in the tens of thousands of miles currently. Withproposed greenways of all types included, the total length of U.S. greenways probably approaches 100,000miles. These numbers tell only the statistical part of the story of greenways, much of which has occurredsince the late 1980s. Clearly, greenways are one of the most significant developments in outdoor recreation inthe United States over the past decade.

PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

The private sector is the fourth major provider of outdoor recreation resources in addition to the fed-eral, state, and local levels of government. Private land (including water) and businesses play a critical role insupplying outdoor recreation opportunities, especially in regions of the country with relatively little publicland. Private land provides a variety of settings for outdoor recreation, from the highly developed to theprimitive. Some recreation activities like gardening and family gatherings, not to mention informal relaxationand sunbathing, occur predominantly on private land.

Recreation businesses provide many of the necessary inputs that consumers need for satisfying recre-ation experiences. Businesses manage natural resources, provide facilities and equipment, and offer leader-ship and other services to individuals or groups that recreate outdoors. In addition, semiprivate, not-for-profitgroups, including land trusts, conservancies and the like, manage resources and make some available to thepublic for recreation. In this section, we look broadly at private recreation resources in two general catego-ries: land and recreation businesses.


Private Recreation Land

National Private Landowners StudyThe National Private Landowners Study (NPLOS) was conducted by the FS, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and the University of Georgia in 1975,1985, and again in 1995.35 A major purpose wasto investigate private landowner practices with respect to recreation and accessibility. Private land was clas-sified into one of five categories: (1) closed to public access, (2) leased to individuals or groups for recreation,(3) reserved for family and friends’ recreational use only, (4) open to the general public for recreation, and (5)undesignated. An estimate of the amount of land in each of these categories was calculated for every county inthe coterminous United States. Two of the categories, open and leased land, indicate accessibility of privateland to the public for recreation, both with and without a price.

The 1992 National Resources Inventory estimated a total of about 1.3 billion acres of nonfederal forestand agricultural land in the United States, excluding Alaska. Roughly 181.1 million of these acres (14 percent)are nonindustrial private land available for outdoor recreation (Table 111.27). Most of these 181 million acresare open to the general public (72 percent); the remainder are leased to either individuals or groups (28percent). The South, with about 64.2 million acres either open or leased, has over one-third of the U.S. privateland that is available for recreation. Next is the Rocky Mountains (56.3 million acres), followed by the North(47.1 million) and Pacific Coast (13.5 million).

Table 111.27: Area of Private Land Open and Leased for Outdoor Recreation by Region, 1995

Availability ofPrivate Land North

Region (1000 acres)South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Open to general publicLeased to individuals

and groupsE i t h e r o r l e a s e dopen

42,105.8 30,262.l 45,882.S 12,233.8 130,484.2

5,028.8 33,906.8 10,404.7 1,231.8 50,572.l47,134.6 64,168.9 56,287.2 13,465.6 181,056.3

Private land available in the South is about evenly split between open and leased, but in all other regionsthe amount of leased land is relatively minor. In the North and Pacific Coast, the ratio of open to leased landis about nine to one. Land open to the general public for outdoor recreation in the North makes up 89 percentof available private nonindustrial land versus 11 percent that is leased. In the Pacific Coast, open land ac-counts for 91 percent of the available land and leased land the remaining 9 percent. The Rocky Mountains aresomewhat less dominated by open land, with leased land comprising 19 percent of the regional total availablefor recreation. The South has more than three times as much leased land as any other region and accounts fortwo-thirds of all leased land in the United States. The Rocky Mountains have the most open land acreage (45.8million), followed closely by the North (42.1 million acres).

The 1985 NPLOS also estimated acreages of private nonindustrial land in each of the five access catego-ries, but methodological differences between the two studies make comparisons difficult. Considering thiscaveat, the trend between the two surveys indicates an estimated 35 percent decline in amount of land avail-able for public outdoor recreation, down from 278 million total acres in 1985. The most pronounced changewas in the amount of open land in the Rocky Mountains, which fell by an estimated 43 million acres. Inaddition, open land in North declined by 39.6 million acres. Leased acreage actually increased slightly overallnationwide by less than a million acres. Both the South and Rocky Mountains showed significant gains inleased land, the North only a modest loss, but the Pacific Coast showed a substantial loss of about 10 millionacres.

%ee Chapter IV for thorough coverage of the results and findings of the 1995 NPLOS.


Outdoor Recreation on Private Land in the Northeast: Case Briefs

(By Wilfred E. Richard, Outdoor Ventures North, Inc., Georgetown, ME, and Lloyd C. Irland,The Irland Group Forestry Consultants, Winthrop, ME)

Introduction

This article describes four examples of how the private sector and public/private partnerships haveresponded to provide outdoor recreation opportunities on private land in the northeastern United States. Justunder 94 percent of the land area of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont is in private ownership. In Pennsyl-vania, hunting is a major activity requiring extensive blocks of land. Thus, the importance of privately ownedresources for outdoor recreation is obvious (Northern Forest Lands Council, 1994). Also important is theeconomic issue of supplementary income for the landowner.

Private land available for public recreation is declining due to a number of factors, including the pur-chase of second homes by nonresidents and the associated fragmentation of the landscape, urban develop-ment, and the increased posting of land. Also affecting recreational access to private land are concerns aboutlandowner liability, perceptions of government interference and ‘takings,’ and state regulations that inhibitrecreational development. It is generally agreed that “... in the best interest of forest conservation, largeindustrial holdings [should] remain under the stability of forest industry ownership” (Brown, 1993a, p. 14).However, if public use of private land is to be achieved in an emerging multiuse and multi-owner landscape,outdoor recreationists must be perceived as legitimate users and responsible users.

As population and the demand for outdoor recreation continue to increase, there is a growing need todevelop more access to privately forested land and to enhance the amenities of that land. Because of techno-logical advances in outdoor recreation gear and equipment, demand has not only grown but is also becomingincreasingly diverse with activities for every season. An increasingly differentiated market has developed inboth mechanized (e.g., snowmobiles, ATVs, dirt bikes, jet skis) and nonmechanized (e.g., sea kayaking, white-water rafting, nordic skiing, winter hiking, nature photography) recreation. Case briefs presented below de-scribe a variety of recreation activities and resources provided on private land: a winter recreation program inMaine, an innovative backcountry lease agreement in New Hampshire, a general state strategy for assuringprivate land access in Vermont, and a statewide hunting lease program in Pennsylvania.

Maine Snowmobile Pro&-am

Maine has about 11,000 miles of snowmobile trails that are managed through the state’s snowmobileprogram. Involved in this cooperative program are two partners: the Snowmobile Program of the Maine Bu-reau of Parks and Lands, and organized snowmobile clubs. This program is funded by the state of Mainethrough a dedicated account that is supported by a percentage of snowmobile registration fees and snowmo-bile gasoline taxes. The clubs initiate the approach to landowners for trail use and/or development rights. Ifthe clubs do not work with the respective landowners, the state will not fund development or maintenance ofa trail.

If issues do arise between owners and users, the state steps in to serve as mediator. Though snowmobileclubs make the initial time and financial commitment to develop a new trail, they are then reimbursed throughthe dedicated funds. According to the state administrator of the program, reimbursement is through a grantapplication process which is based on “a great deal of trust” between clubs and the state. This trust involvestwo key elements: that permission has been extended by a landowner to a club and that claimed expenses fordevelopment and maintenance are genuine. Capital equipment purchases (e.g., trail grooming machines)with these dedicated funds are not allowed. However, this prohibition is currently being reviewed.

In terms of liability, the state avails itself of “common law liability,” referred to as the “landownerliability” law and the “recreational use” statute that guards against liability for recreational and harvestingactivities (Title 14, M.R.S.A. Section 159-A). Under this protection, whether a landowner gives permission ornot, the landowner is protected:

If someone uses your land or passes through your land for outdoor recreation or harvesting, youassume no responsibility and incur no liability for injuries to that person or that person’s prop-erty. You are protected whether or not you give permission to use your land (Androscoggin LandTrust, 1996).


In addition, the state’s Bureau of Parks and Recreation maintains a $300,000 liability policy. To date,even in the light of many fatal accidents over the 20-plus year history of the state snowmobile program, therehas not been one instance of legal action being brought against the state.

In terms of land easements, the program does not grant easements, per se. What the Bureau of Parksand Recreation of the Department of Conservation does, though, is to purchase or lease abandoned railroadbeds and convert them into multiuse trails. Finally, there are cross-border trail linkages known as the “Inter-state Trail System.”

PhilliDs Brook Backcountrv Recreation Area

Mountain Recreation, a company based in Conway, New Hampshire, has designed an innovative strat-egy for developing and managing recreational land while not actually owning the land itself. Conductingoperations as a subsidiary, Timberland Trails, Inc. (TT), Mountain Recreation has a three-year “recreationrights” contract with International Paper Timberlands Operating Company. TT is developing and managingthe Phillips Brook Backcountry Recreation Area on International Paper-owned land in northern New Hamp-shire. Opened in the summer of 1997, it offers backcountry lodging and trail facilities on 24,000 acres ofwildlands. Through this arrangement, a “flexible trail system” has been developed, one that uses existing skidroads as trails; conversely, trails may be used as skid roads as circumstances require. The private timbercompany’s interest in the project is summed up by Duane Nadeau, timberlands manager for InternationalPaper (Jimenez, 1997):

To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first time in the United States that a private profes-sional recreation company will be co-managed with industrial forestry on private lands. The waythings are right now, the forest owner has nothing but the income from timber to support theproperty. The costs of road building, insurance, managing land, and all other costs continue torise, but the trees can only give you so much. It’s reached the point where there has to be someother revenue source for land to remain commercial forest, and recreation is an obvious place tolook.

In terms of liability, TT maintains a management program for risk reduction. All risk factors are exam-ined and subsequently reduced through a management plan. For example, TT field representatives reviewwaiver agreements with clients who choose to visit Phillips Brook. In this fashion, clients are made fullyaware, in writing, of the risk associated with a back country adventure. TT has essentially a two-track strat-egy. First, as New Hampshire state limited liability protection applies to non-fee recreation, the public isinvited to bike, hike, and ski on Phillips Brook trails at no charge. By not charging the public for use of land ortrails, the issue of liability is resolved. Instead, fees are charged for lodging and meals. Second, an agreementis maintained that names the landowner, International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, as co-insur-ers and includes a hold-harmless agreement for TT. This agreement is substantively similar to Maine’s land-owner liability law.

Under the direction of Mountain Recreation President Bill Altenburg, TT serves as an interface betweenthe public and the landowners. There is no threat that the public will become a landowner through impositionof eminent domain under the National Trail Systems Act of 1968-which provides for taking up to a 1,000 footcorridor along a trail-or through any other federal or state regulatory entity. Through this land managementmethod, landowners are protected from “creeping corridors” that may interfere with an owner’s use of theland. But, at the same time, the land is made available to the public. The local press has written many positivestories about Phillips Brook with headlines such as “use of trails is free” (Tetreault, 1997), “have fun on papercompany land” (Marvel, 1997), and “new ret area is paradise” (Tracy, 1997).

Additionally, one of Altenburg’s missions is to educate the public about the concept of an industrialforest. Strategically, the goal is a multiuse forest as recreational and industrial land in which both industryand the public have a stake. Apparently, consideration is being given by other paper companies in both NewHampshire and Maine to utilize the Mountain Recreation approach as a model. Mountain Recreation is alsonegotiating for similar projects in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and New York. The usual approach to recre-ation by paper and land management companies, who own much of the industrial forest, is to basically moni-tor use.


Vermont Private Lands Task Group

In Vermont, as in Maine and New Hampshire, the amount of private land available for public recreationis declining due to a number of factors including rural migration and increased levels of litigation. The inci-dence of posting is increasing, particularly as parcels of land become fragmented into vacation or second-home sized lots, usually of a few acres (Brown 1993b). This fragmentation has resulted in the Vermont PrivateLands Task Group designing a strategy to slow the downward spiral of land available to the public. Withapproximately 90 percent of its total land in private ownership (not just forested land) and with an importantrecreation-based tourism sector, the state of Vermont has taken policy and program action to encouragemaintenance of the traditional use of private land by the public. As a result of this effort, two publicationshave been produced. The first was written by the “Public Outdoor Recreation on Privately-Owned Lands TaskForce” released as a report by that title (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). While the report lists10 issues, goals, and actions that it identifies as requiring action, two in particular stand out:

. Landowners may face the threat or loss of their traditional uses when recreational groups have accessand rights to their land. Suggested goal and associated actions involves working together to communi-cate that traditional uses of land, such as forestry, constitutes a legitimate use of the land. This corre-sponds with one of the missions of the Phillips Brook Backcountry Recreation Area, which is to educatethe public on the legitimacy and economic value of an industrial forest.

. Some landowners fear the threat of takings (including regulatory, eminent domain, and adverse posses-sion) of private property due to recreational use. While recreationists should be allowed use of land, itshould not come at the price of reducing the landowner’s ability to make a profit or to otherwise use theland. Landowners would be involved in any planning process for recreational use and in education ofthe public about the negative affects of “taking” land.

Following publication of the task force report, a booklet entitled “Public Recreation on Private Land: ALandowner’s Guide” was released (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1997). That document lists guide-lines that are clearly codified here. For example, in the discussion of the responsibilities of recreationalorganizations, it states that:

. The organization must have the means to educate visitors about allowed uses and proper care of theland.

. The organization must contact the landowner at least annually (or at some other agree-upon interval)to check on his/her satisfaction, problems, and intentions for continued use.

Elsewhere, the guide addresses a specific provision that has been made in Vermont statutes (10 V.S.A. Section448) for protecting the rights of landowners whose land is crossed by the Vermont Trail System. No public orprivate owner is liable for injury or damage (p.8). Neither Maine nor New Hampshire specifically limits liabil-ity associated with hiking. As with Maine and New Hampshire statutes, Vermont statute (10 V.S.A. Section5212) releases a landowner from liability for recreational use when a fee is not charged (p.7). The intent is toencourage open access to recreational use by the public, while reassuring the owner that he or she is notincurring great personal risk.

Public Hunting on Private Land in Pennsvlvania

Pennsylvania is a major hunting state, with some 2.3 million hunting licenses sold each year. Since the193Os, its Game Commission has managed a program of arrangements for hunter access to privately-ownedland. While often described as a “leasing” program, it involves some minor incentives for the landowners butno cash rental payment. Agreements signed under the program have five-year terms.

Under these programs, hunting access to 4.5 million acres of private land is assured. This is an areaequal to 16 percent of the commonwealth’s entire land area. This is in addition to the significant amount ofstate forest and game land that is also available. The program involves about 30,000 individual landowners ascooperators, so it is a major administrative task to operate the program. The total area under the program hasbeen roughly stable in recent years, but this masks considerable dynamism as some owners drop out and arereplaced by others.

There are three related programs, one for farms, one for commercially managed timberlands, and onefor small tracts. Cooperating land is marked, and rules for using it are taught in hunter safety courses and in


information materials for hunters. No survey has been conducted to determine the amount of hunting activitysupported by this land, but it is clearly a huge number. Much of this land is relatively close to cities so it offersa significant improvement in access for many hunters. Hunters must gain the landowner’s permission to usethe land under the program.

National Private Forest Land StudyThe National Private Forest Land Study, conducted by the FS Northeastern Forest Experiment Station

in 1994, sought to learn more about the management practices and ownership objectives of private forestowners. Scientists estimated a total of 9.91 million owners and 393.5 million acres of privately-owned forest(Table III.28).“6 The private forest estate is important because so many recreation activities occur there. Morethan four out of every five private forest acres are in the eastern United States (Figure 111.17). An even higherproportion of private forest land owners are in the East.

Table III.28: Estimated Number of Owners and Acreage of Private Forest Land by Year and Region, 1978 and 1994

Owners and Acres YearNorth

RegionSouth Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Owners (1000s) 1978 3,289.S 3,850.4 131.7 486.3 7,757.91994 3,940.l 4,940.2 385.7 644.6 9,910.6

Acres (1000s) 1978 114,054.o 173,133.0 16,135.0 29,771.0 333,093.o1994 129,491.‘) 187,781.8 30,354.7 45,832.6 393,461.0

Birch, Thomas W. 1996. Prioute Forest-lad Ownev-s of the Unitecl States, 1994. USDA ForestNortheastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin, NE-134.

Figure 111.17: Percentage of Private Forest Land Acreage by Region, 1994

Source: Birch, Thomas W. 1996. Privafe Forcsf-IandOwners of the UnitedStates, 1994. USDAForest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin, NE-134.

Estimated private forest acreage and ownership units increased considerably between 1978 and 1994,about 18 percent. Ownership units increased even more, at the rate of 28 percent. Size of the average owner-ship unit stayed about the same in the West (74.2 acres in 1978 versus 73.9 acres in 1994), but declined

J6This compares to the national total of 394.5 million acres of private forest estimated by the 1992 National Resources inventory.


somewhat in the East (40.2 acres in 1978 versus 35.7 acres in 1994 ), Individually-owned forest land ac-counted for about three-fifths of the total in 1994 (Table 111.29). Most of the rest is owned by corporations,with the remainder belonging to partnerships and other owners. The share of individual and other owneracreage increased between 1978 and 1994 while those of partnerships and corporations dropped from 41percent of forest land to 35 percent. Corporate acreage still increased, however, and comprises more than oneof every four private forest acres in the United States. This is especially true in the Pacific Coast and South,where 52 and 28 percent of private forest acres, respectively, are owned by corporations. The North andRocky Mountains are both around 20 percent.

Table 111.29: Estimated Number of Acres of Forest Land in Private Ownership by Type of Ownership,United States, 1978 and 1994

Type of ownershipMillions

1978Percent Millions

1994Percent’

Individual 183.5 55.1 232.3 59.0Partnership 35.8 10.7 29.7 7.5Corporation 101.1 30.4 107.1 27.2Other 12.7 3.8 24.3 6.2All Ownerships 333.1 100.0 393.4 100.0

‘Numbers may not sum exactly to totals because of rounding.

Source: Birch, Thomas W. 1996. Private Forest-Land Owners of the United States. USDA Forest Service,Northeastern Forest Experiment State, Resource Bulletin NE-134.

The “other” category of forest land ownership includes recreation and sport clubs, undividedestates, trusts, and Indian tribal land. Of the U.S. total of 24.3 million acres in this category, almostone-third are owned by recreation or sport clubs (Table 111.30). In the North, 3.77 of 3.93 million‘other’ acres (96 percent) are owned by recreation or sport clubs. Recreation clubs are also preva-lent in the South, with 2.86 of 5.27 million acres (54 percent) of ‘other’ private land. In the RockyMountains, just five percent of ‘other’ private land is owned by recreation/sport clubs and in thePacific Coast, the figure is 14 percent.

Table 111.30: Acres of Recreational Uses and Benefits of Private Forest Land by Region, 1994

Use/BenefitNorth

Region (1000 acres)South Rocky Mountains Pa&k Coast U.S. Total

Recreation/sport clubor association

Recreation as one of top tworeasons for owning woodland

Recreation as one of top twoexpected future benefits ofowning woodland

3,776.S 2,857.2 638.5 491.2 7,763.4

34,347.0 32,832.2 6,009.6 5,649.7 78,838.5

41,931.6 44,251.S 8,991.9 7,772.3 102,947.3

Source: Birch, Thomas W. 1996. Private Forest-Land Owners of the United States. USDA Forest Service,Northeastern Forest Experiment State, Resource Bulletin NE-134.


Two other indicators of outdoor recreation use and benefit are shown in Table 111.26. Private forest landowners were asked to list the reasons they own woodland and the benefits they expect to derive during thenext 10 years. Respondents who rated recreation as one of the top two reasons for owning their land own 78.8million of the 393.5 million acres (20.0 percent) of private forest. The proportion who listed recreation as aprimary objective was highest in the North (27 percent) and lowest in the Pacific Coast (12 percent). A littlemore than one-fourth (26 percent) of respondents nationally said that they expect recreation to be one of thetop two benefits they derive from their land during the next 10 years. They own about 103 million acres offorest. Again, a larger proportion of forest owners in the North Region expect these benefits. They own about32 percent of private forest land in the North. The Rocky Mountains follows closely with 30 percent of theacres expected to provide future recreational benefits. Percentages in the South and Pacific Coast are alsohigher for expected benefits than for stated ownership reasons, In the South, 24 percent expect future ben-efits from recreation and in the Pacific Coast, 17 percent.

Nature ConservancyLand

Another type ofland with significant out-door recreation value isthe semiprivate land man-aged by land trusts andconservancies. The larg-est and best known ofthese is The Nature Con-servancy (TNC). Theirland is classified as ‘semi-private,’ hut while most ofit is owned by the conser-vancies or other privateowners, a large percentageis open for recreation.TNC maintains a compre-hensive database of tractsit has identified as havingsignificant natural values,as well as properties itowns or manages. For thelatter, TNC describes pub-lic access allowed and re-source protection status.

Visitors exconine wetlands ut the Nuture Consemuncy’s Cape Muy Migrutoty Bird Refuge in NOWJersey. Photo courtesy of the Nuture Conservancy. Photogruph by Connie Gelb.

TNC’s database consists of 7,159 tracts totaling 3.33 million acres. A little over half of this land (1.71million acres in 5,165 tracts) is designated as part of a “Managed Area.” Managed Areas are defined by man-agement, not ownership, and are created to characterize natural areas under protective management. Theremaining 1,994 tracts totaling 1.62 million acres are not part of a designated Managed Area. They have beenidentified as having significant ecological values worthy of preservation. Little additional information is avail-able on these undesignated tracts. Once the tract owner agrees to protect certain site values or characteris-tics, the tract is reclassified as a Managed Area.

The 1.71 million acres of Managed Areas are fairly evenly distributed between the eastern and westernUnited States, with the most in the Rocky Mountains (35 percent) and North (29 percent), and the least in thePacific Coast (20 percent) and South (16 percent) (Table 111.31). About 1.2 million acres of the Managed Areasare managed as Nature Conservancy Preserves. More preserves are located in the Rocky Mountains (43 per-cent of preserve acreage) than in any other region. In 1987, Nature Conservancy Preserves totaled about823,000 acres. The increase of 387,000 plus acres represents a 47.0 percent gain in preserve resources.


Table 111.31: Acres of Land Managed by the Nature Conservacy by Classification, Access, and Region, 1997

Classification and Access Region (1000 acres)North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Managed Areas 493.4 272.8 595.5 346.1 1,707.8Open to public access’ 237.5 101.5 391.2 74.5 804.7Restricted public access 105.3 51.8 27.7 146.4 331.2Closed to public access 34.8 11.5 14.3 9.1 69.7

Preserves? 225.1 175.1 517.1 292.9 1,210.2

lOpen, restricted and closed public access do not sum to Managed Area acres because 502,200 acres did nothave public access information.

*Preserves are part of the Managed Areas. The approximately 500,000 acres of Managed Areas that are notPreserves are either resources managed by other organizations or resources managed by The Nature Con-servancy, but not established as Preserves.

Source: The Nature Conservancy. Managed Area Basic Record file.

Just under half of the Managed Areas (804,700 acres) are open to the public and another 19 percent ofManaged Area acres have restricted public access. Further information about the recreation on these areas isnot available, but it is fairly safe to assume that the permitted types of recreation must have low impact.Nature study and wildlife observation are undoubtedly the most common form of recreation that occurs onthe Ma_naged Areas. Nearly half of the open acres are in the Rocky Mountains, while under 10 percent are inthe Pacific Coast. No information was available about public access to just under 30 percent of the ManagedAreas.

Private Recreation Businesses

Campgrounds

(By Douglas McEwen, Professor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois)

Privately-owned campgrounds have been in existence since the early 1930s when they were firstchronicled in the Woodall Publishing Company’s 1937 edition of “Trailering Parks and Campgrounds.” DuringWorld War II many of these campgrounds were converted to emergency housing, and then became mobilehome parks. Private campgrounds became an important sector of the outdoor recreation supply system in themid-1950s, when many private landowners started operating small campgrounds. Later, many additionalcampgrounds were developed along interstate highways to serve the traveling camper (McEwen & Profaizer,1989).

Although most Americans associate the term campground with a rustic, tree-shaded area, the word hasalso been used to describe sites with a half-dozen recreational vehicle (RV) gravel parking spaces attached toa truck stop or mobile home park. On the other hand, luxurious RV parks with manicured sites, full-servicebathrooms, and numerous recreation amenities have too been called campgrounds. Since differences be-tween the types of campgrounds are great, the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds generallyrecognizes luxury RV parks where visitors live for two to 12 months per year as being distinct from camp-grounds where visitors stay for shorter periods and receive fewer amenities. Still, the range in campgroundconditions is great and presents difficulties in deciding which units to include in a national inventory.

Woodall Publishing Company, which has been conducting in-depth analyses of its campground nationalinventories just since 1987, annually reviews its listing of campgrounds and RV parks, deleting between threeand five percent each year because of poor quality. This inventory, conducted in conjunction with the publi-cation of their campground directory, is the best and most consistent source of data on private campgroundsin the United States. The word “campgrounds,” as defined by Woodall’s inventory, includes both RV parks andcampgrounds.


In 1996, the Woodall Publishing Company inventory listed a total of 6,900 private campgrounds (Table111.32). The two eastern regions account for 53 percent of private campgrounds nationwide, the North leadingall regions with 36 percent. In 1977, there were 8,164 campgrounds with 68 percent in the East. The nationalnet loss of 1,264 private campgrounds occurred primarily in the East, and especially the North, which lostmore than 1,000 campgrounds, a 29 percent drop in the past 20 years.

Nationally, the total number of private campgrounds has shrunk by 15 percent since 1977. Many of theclosed campgrounds were probably small, inefficient, and unprofitable. The trend seems to be accelerating inthe private campground sector. Between 1977 and 1987, only about one percent of the private campgroundswere closed, but between 1987 and 1996 the decline was 14 percent. Patterns differ somewhat among regions.The rate of decline between 1977 and 1996 was much less in the South and Rocky Mountains. Meanwhile, thePacific Coast essentially stayed the same with a net loss of only seven campgrounds.

Table 111.32: Number of Private Campgrounds and Campsites by Year and Region

Qpe of Siteand Year

North South

Region

Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Campgrounds197719871996

Campsites197719871996

3,515 2,058 1,393 1,198 8,1643,174 2,114 1,431 1,343 8,0622,504 1,850 1,355 1,191 6,900

352,933 202,496 88,740 72,553 716,722409,196 280,046 144,499 113,969 947,710334,847 233,724 139,783 103,319 811,673

Source: Woodall Publishing Company campground inventory database. Lake Forest, Illinois.

The trend of decreasing private campgrounds in the North seems to be accelerating. The 10 percentdrop from 1977 to 1987 increased to 21 percent between 1987 and 1996. The other three regions gainedcampgrounds during the first decade and lost in the second. The South increased slightly between 1977 and1987, but then dropped 12 percent between 1987 and 1996. Private campgrounds in the Rocky Mountainregion increased slightly between 1977 and 1987, but then declined during the 1987 to 1996 period resultingin a net loss of 38 units. In the Pacific Coast, a 12 percent increase in the first decade was followed by an 11percent loss in the second decade.

In 1996, there were a reported 811,673 private campsites in the United States (Table 111.28). Distribu-tion of campsites is similar to that of campgrounds; 86 percent of all sites are in the East. The North containedalmost one-half (49 percent) of all campsites. During the 1977 to 1996 period, there was a 13 percent increasein the number of campsites nationally, but this figure masks a mixed pattern. Between 1977 and 1987 therewas a 32 percent increase in the numbers of campsites, followed by a 14 percent decrease between 1987 and1996. In all regions, campsite numbers grew substantially between 1977 and 1987, but then declined between1987 and 1996. The net result, except in the North, was an increase in the number of campsites over the 20-year period. In the North, however, overall campsite numbers decreased five percent from 1977 to 1996. Inthe South, the total number of campsites grew 15 percent from 1977 to 1996. The growth was fueled by avigorous 38 percent incre.ase of private campsites between 1977 and 1986, but was tempered by a 17 percentdecline between 1987 and 1996.

In the western regions, percentage growth rates were strong, but the base number of campsites is muchsmaller than in the East. The Rocky Mountain region experienced a 58 percent gain in private campsitesbetween 1977 and 1996. The Pacific Coast Region grew at the rate of 42 percent during the same period. Bothwestern regions also experienced gains in the first decade followed by losses in the second. The Rocky Moun-tains added campsites at the rate of 63 percent between 1977 and 1987, then lost at the much smaller rate ofthree percent between 1987 and 1996. The situation was similar in the Pacific Coast: a 57 percent increasebetween 1977 and 1987 followed by a nine percent decline between 1987 and 1996.

Large increases in the number of campsites between 1977 and 1987 (especially in the South, RockyMountains, and Pacific Coast), combined with a decrease in the total number of campgrounds during the

Outdoor Recreation Resources I53

same period, indicate a trend toward larger campgrounds. This change could indicate that large numbers ofsmall, unprofitable campgrounds closed during that period.

Woodall Publishing Company classifies campsites as: (1) full hookup with water, sewer, and electricity,as well as television and cable service in some cases; (2) water and electricity; (3) electricity only; and (4) nohookups. In 1996,59 percent of private campsites in the United States had full hookups; 27 percent had waterand electricity; just two percent had electricity only; and 12 percent had no hookups (Table 111.33). As inprevious years, the private sector accounted for the vast majority of all full hookup sites, about 480,000compared to just under 20,000 in the public sector. A similar pattern holds for water and electricity camp-sites, though not to the same extent as full hookup sites. The public sector has traditionally provided rustic,no-hookup campsites and accounts for 69 percent of these sites nationwide. The same pattern was also truefor the electricity-only sites, with 81 percent provided by the public sector.

Table 111.33: Number of Campsites at Private Campgrounds by ‘Qpe of Amenity and Year, 1977-1996

me of Amenity1977

Year19871 1996l

Full hookup 285,532 483,672 480,783Water & electricity 269,551 310,066 220,521Electricity only 47,752 30,900 17,689No hookups 113,887 122,585 94,667All sites 716,722 947,223 813,660

‘Woodall Publishing Company’s 1987 and 1996 data on campsite types do not match exactly the total num-ber ofU.S. campsites as shown in Table 111.33.

I Source: Woodall Publishing Company campground inventory database. Lake Forest, Illinois.

Between 1977 and 1987, over 198,000 full hookup campsites were constructed in the private sector, a69 percent increase. During that same period, there were modest increases in water and electric sites, up 15percent, and no-hookup sites, up eight percent. However, during the 1987 to 1996 period, the number ofwater and electric, electric only, and no-hookup sites declined substantially. The net results over the 20-yearspan was an 18 percent drop in the number of water and electric sites, a 17 percent drop in no-hookup sites,and a dramatic 63 percent drop in electric only sites. While many private campgrounds still maintain anumber of no-hookup campsites in tenting or overflow areas, the great momentum is toward full-hookupsites. Since most customers demand water ‘as well as electricity, providing only the latter is a fading venture.Indeed, only about two percent of all commercial campsites are electricity only.

Woodall’s inventory lists a wide variety of private campground facilities and services ranging from laun-dry to recreation programs. About 58 percent of the campgrounds are open year round and 61 percent leasesites to campers on an annual basis. The number of sites leased on a seasonal basis grew substantially between1977 and 1987 (62 percent), but then slowed between 1987 and 1996. It appears that more of the privatecampgrounds remaining in business are offering seasonal leases, a trend that is likely to continue into thefuture. Approximately one-third of the campgrounds offer cable TV and phone hookups. Between 1987 and1996, the number of campgrounds offering these communication services almost doubled, another trendlikely to continue.

Private campgrounds offer a variety of recreation facilities, with horseshoes being the most popular.Over 64 percent of the campgrounds have horseshoe pits, probably because this is a very inexpensive facilityto build and maintain. About 44 percent of private campgrounds provide playgrounds. This proportion isslightly lower than in previous years. Federal consumer product safety standards have been published forplaygrounds, and owners can be held liable if playgrounds do not meet these strict standards. Retrofitting orreplacing playgrounds is expensive, and it is possible that owners are removing these structures rather thanface increased liability risks.

Also declining are the numbers of swimming pools, down 35 percent between 1977 and 1987 and 11percent between 1987 and 1996. Overall, there has been a 42 percent decrease in the number of camp-


grounds with swimming pools over the last 19 years. Reasons for this drop are unclear, but the number ofsmaller campgrounds dropping out of the market might explain the decline. In general, the larger, luxuriouscampgrounds have swimming pools.

Finally, the number of campgrounds offering boating declined by 27 percent between 1977 and 1996. Thedecline could be explained by the closing of smaller, rural campgrounds that usually had a small lake or pondfor boating. Unfortunately, comprehensive data on campground facilities and programs are not available fromthe public sector for a comparison. With regard to restrictions, the number of private campgrounds excludingtents seems to be slowly rising. Now, 20 percent exclude tents. It is unlikely that any public campgroundsexclude tents.

A major recreation resource somewhat related to private campgrounds yet unique in its own right is the“Organized Camp.” They are similar in that both provide access to camping opportunities, but organizedcamps are very much program-oriented and mostly geared toward youth. About one-quarter of U.S. organizedcamps are for-profit businesses, so they do not necessarily belong in the same category as private camp-grounds or other recreation businesses. However, they are not exactly public resources either, since themajority are operated by youth agencies and religious organizations. They are often referred to as “semi-private” resources because most do not exclude people as private firms do, but they are not supported bypublic tax dollars. In any event, organized camps are a significant outdoor recreation resource that introducesthousands of young Americans to the outdoors. Data are not available on the amount of land and waterresources that make up organized camps in this country, but the large number of camps assures that it is notinconsequential.

Organised Camps in the United States

(By Connie Coutellier, Professional Development Director, American Camping Association, Martinsville, IN)

Phikkophy and Management of Organized Camps

More than 8,500 day and resident camps of varying types, lengths, and sponsorships flourish through-out the United States. Camps provide a sustained, group living experience in an outdoor setting and utilize theresources of the natural surroundings to contribute to each camper’s mental, physical, social, and spiritualgrowth. Each summer, more than six million children and adults take advantage of these organized recre-ational and educational opportunities. In a 1996 American Camping Association (ACA) survey of organizedcamps, over 50 percent of the respondents reported an increase in enrollment of 15 percent over the 1995figures.

Today, the management of camps requires skill, vision, and innovative strategies for success. ACA is anonprofit educational organization representing all segments of the camp profession including agencies serv-ing youth, independent camps, religious and fraternal organizations, and municipal government operatedcamps. Approximately 6,200 camps are operated by nonprofit groups including youth agencies and religiousorganizations, and 2,300 by privately owned independent for-profit operators. The most popular session lengthis one week to two weeks, although the majority of independent camp operators offer four, six, and eight weeksessions. Summer camps for children, adults, families, and seniors operate under trained professionals andhave volunteer or paid staff to work with their special client groups. Camps may be found in rural, suburbanor urban communities, operate on several thousand back country acres, or in city parks.

Camps arc designed in a variety of styles and formats and provide activities that vary to meet manyinterests. Most camps offer a general program of outdoor activities such as hiking, swimming, sports andgames, arts and crafts, and nature awareness. Some camps have special emphasis on programs such as horse-back riding, water sports, music, or adventure challenge activities. While camps provide facilities and servicesfor a broad range of children, youth, and adults, some camps provide services to special groups. There areprograms for seniors, families, campers with cancer, gifted and talented children, youth at risk, diabetics,asthmatics, or persons with disabilities.

Summer camps employ more than 500,000 adults to work as counselors, program or activity leaders,unit and program directors or supervisors, and in support-services roles such as maintenance, administra-tion, food service, and health care. Most camps average from 40 to 50 percent returning staff. In the past 10years there has been an increase in the use of international staff to expose campers to different cultures.


TvDes of CamDs

Of the estimated 8,500 American camps, approximately 5,500 are resident camps and 3,000 are daycamps. Kesident camps are designed for campers staying at camp from several days to eight weeks. They sleepovernight in cabins, tents, tepees, or other forms of shelter, and participate in a variety of supervised activi-ties. Waving grown by nearly 90 percent in the past 20 years, day camps offer sessions and age-appropriateprograms similar to resident camps. Campers are often transported to camp by bus or van, and return homeeach day in the late afternoon. Trip camps provide programs where participants transport themselves todifferent sites by backpacking, riding, or canoeing. Travel camps often transport campers by car or bus togeographic and topographic places of interest. Family camps offer cross-generational activities on weekendsthroughout the year, as well as family sessions during the summer. Family camps have increased more than500 percent in the past 12 years.

A number of resident camps offer licensed child care and day camps on their sites for the benefit oftheir neighboring communities. In addition to the increase of children with disabilities being mainstreamedinto camps, many new camps have opened to provide specialized services to children with special medicalneeds. Camps are also recruiting and serving more international campers.

Year-round use of camp facilities is a growing trend. Programs are evolving from spring and fall ancillaryweekends to winterized full-service operations seven days a week. Many camps work with schools to provideenvironmental education during the school year, provide year-round program and food services and havesome year-round staff. Camps can often be rented to other groups wishing to provide camping services totheir constituents. With meeting rooms, sleeping and eating accommodations readily available, many facili-ties are both camps and year-round conference or retreat centers.

Accredited CamDs

As the accrediting body for the camp profession, the American Camping Association is an advocate forthe accredited-camp experience. ACA Standards are continually revised and updated to reflect the needs ofcamps, the public and the changing body of laws and regulations. Although many state and federal laws andregulations address basic sanitation and food service concerns, ACA standards go a step further in addressingthe specific areas of programming, personnel, health care, and management practices. Separate standards areapplied to activities such as aquatics, horseback riding, adventure challenge activities, and travel and tripprograms. ACA publishes a Guide to ACA-Accredited Cumps available from their bookstore and in libraries.It provides camp listings and program information for parents and for those seeking summer employment ina day or resident camp.

While fees to attend camp vary, they generally range from $15 to $100 per day for resident camps andfrom $10 to $50 per day for day camps. Nearly 85 percent of ACA-accredited camps offer some level offinancial assistance to more than one million children from economically-deprived families, or to those whomay have special medical needs or are in special situations that might preclude them from attending camp.The need, however, far outweighs the ability of camps to provide assistance. Camps securing assistance forchildren with medical needs have more success in fund-raising efforts than those serving at-risk youth. Thechallenge for the camping industry is to make the camp experience financially available for all children.

Pro&am Trends

A particular emphasis of organized camp programming is building the self-confidence, independence,and self-reliance of each individual camper. In an ACA survey, about 60 percent of the directors reportedadding new activities and programs over the last few years, The most common program trends in camps arechallenging and adventurous activities, including high and low ropes courses, climbing walls, zip lines, back-packing and mountain biking, and cave exploring. There is also an increased emphasis on performing arts andfine arts such as dance, theater, ceramics, leather crafts, woodworking, photography, etc.

The ACA is committed to minimum impact camping and has an Outdoor Lioing Skills training programthat teaches children how to visit nature “softly.” This is a response to the industry’s interest in conservationand appropriate land use issues and is consistent with the USDA Forest Service Leuve No Truce program. ACAhas signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Forest Service and many summer camps have long-term contracts to build and operate facilities on Forest Service lands. National Parks and Forest Service landsare often used for hiking, backpacking, and tripping programs.


Expected Future Trends

CamD Operations

.

.

.

Acquiring funding to deal with uging property und non-winterized futilities is one of the most pressingproperty management concerns. New government regulations are requiring heavy investment in newinfrastructure, especially water, sewer, and cleanup of any buried toxic hazards on camp property.Year-round school is still under debate in many communities. Nearly four percent of all students attendyear-round schools. Camps are extending the season und diversibing their services. The ACA accredi-tation program is changing from accrediting only summer programs to accrediting year-round opera-tions.Technology has drastically changed the business aspects of marketing and operating a camp. Use of theInternet as a marketing tool continues to increase. Computers are used not only for registration andfinancial records but also for program scheduling and client data. Communication expectations of par-ents have changed with available technology. Cellular phones are common on outdoors trips. Campersoften receive letters via fax and E-mail. Over the next five years, the use of technology, combined withother measures, will dramatically change the nature of the teaching/learning process. ACA and campswill need to diversify methods for training directors and staff.Acquiring, training, and maintaining adequate employed and volunteer stuff is a significant challenge.In fact, 40 percent of ACA’s membership has joined in the past five years without a significant change inthe total membership. More professionals are choosing to use the camp director experience as a step-ping stone to other agency management positions. While the number of potential summer staff fromages 18 to 24 will continue to grow through 2010 based on Census projections, they will likely have lessexperience in working with children, especially in an outdoor setting.Increasing regulutory requirements at the county, state, and federal levels are another issue that willaffect camp operations. Camp directors must comply with and maintain records for a wide variety oflaws and regulations including: Child Labor, OSHA (programs for hazardous materials, blood-born patho-gens, lockout/tag out), EEOC, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights, Fair Labor, Criminal RecordsAct, food and drug laws, copyright laws, Child Protection Act, etc.

MeetinP the Needs of CamDers and the Public

More leisure time options in American society have resulted in increased competition for children’stime in the summer months. Increasingly, school years are longer and greater numbers of workingparents mean that vacation time is often tightly scheduled. The number of school-aged children agesfive to 14 will continue to grow and peak in 2003. After that, the Census Bureau projects a declinethrough 2010. Camps are currently operating at an average capacity of 91 percent. Camps offering six-and eight-week sessions may need to offer shorter sessions and recruit more campers or have moreflexible schedules to meet parent needs.Parents expect more of camps. Research on youth development outcomes and training for directorsmust reflect systematic ways to meusure the outcomes promised. Parents also have greater expecta-tions of camps for providing a safe environment and qualified staff and security for their children.The cost of operating camp has continually increased. Making a camp experience uffordublefor every-one is a major challenge especially as many families have less discretionary income and are losingground in overall family income.Camp directors will also need to recognize the impact of changing demographics in their communitiesand be proactive in attracting and keeping a diverse constituency.Another issue involves the rising rates of youth violence in the United States. Camps will need addi-tional resources and training to help prepare staff to deal with problem behaviors in camp.Still another issue is the injluence of technology and the entertainment industry on American youth.Children today are the video generation. Television viewing continues to consume a lot of children’sdiscretionary time and the amount of time children spend on the Internet is increasing at a very rapidrate. Camps will need to design programs that attract this generation.More children are coming to camp with medications and allergies. The rates of asthma and chronicbronchitis in children are increasing in this country. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADAD)affects three to five percent of the U.S. children. Camp infirmaries are evolving into health and wellnesscenters to educate campers and staff on safety and prevention, monitor risks and manage treatment andmedications.

cOutdoor Recreation Resources 157

Downhill SkiingDownhill ski areas are located, not surprisingly, in the cold-weather states of the North and throughout

the mountainous West (Figure 111.18). The number of areas in the United States increased 14 percent between1987 and 1996, for a total of 449 (Table 111.34). Most of the growth occurred in the North, where nearly two-thirds of downhill ski areas are located. The number of ski areas in the North increased faster (25 percent)than the national rate. The South, with only four percent of U.S. ski areas, had a net loss of one ski areabetween 1987 and 1996, while the Rocky Mountains, with 21 percent of the ski areas, gained one. The PacificCoast added eight ski areas to the 46 that existed in 1987, a 17 percent increase.

Figure 111.18: Counties with DownhiII Ski Areas, 1996

Source: Interski Servicer, Inc. The Pf’hife Book Indvr~ Edition. Washington, DC. 1996.

Table 111.34: Number of Downhill Ski Areas, Lift Capacity per Hour and Vertical Transfer Feet, andNumber of Cross Country Ski Areas by Region, 1996 and 1987l

Ski Area Statistic Year RegionNorth South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Downhill SkiingNumber of Areas 1996 287 16 92 54 449

1987 230 17 91 46 384Lift capacityper hour (1000s) 1996 1,698.l 64.4 787.5 528.1 3,078.l

1987 1,251.2 60.7 532.2 376.5 2,220.6Vertical transfer

feet2 (millions) 1996 826.49 26.73 836.09 395.76 2,085.07Cross-Country SkiingNumber of Areas 1996 424 3 141 68 636

1987 285 1 90 45 421

‘Figures may not sum exactly to totals because of rounding.

?Vertical transfer feet is the sum of the product of vertical rise times lift capacity per hour for each lift at aski area. Comparable data were not available for 1987.

Source: The White Book of Ski Areas, Industry Edition. 1996. Cross Country Ski Areas Association. Skiarea database. 1996. National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System. 1987. USDA Forest Service,Southern Research Station.


Total skier lift capacity per hour is probably a better indicator of the increase in the supply of downhillskiing resources. Nationally, downhill ski areas have the capability of accommodating over three millionskiers per hour, an increase of 39 percent since 1987. Regional totals are the sum of lift capacity per hour foreach ski area. The North had a lower proportion (55 percent) of lift capacity than it did ski areas in 1996, butstill led the Rocky Mountain region, which had 26 percent of the national lift capacity, by a wide margin. TheSouth had only about two percent of U.S. lift capacity. Another useful statistic to describe downhill skiingsupply is vertical transfer feet per hour (VTFH). The VTFH is the sum of lift capacity times vertical rise for alllifts at a ski area. Because it has much greater elevation gains, the Rocky Mountain Region just surpasses theNorth in total VTFH. The Rocky Mountains had 836 million VTFH compared to the North’s 826 million,despite having less than one-third the number of areas as the North. Together, the Rocky Mountain and theNorth regions account for 80 percent of the national total of VTFH. The South has only one percent of totalVTFH.

Downhill Ski Area Trends in the United States

(By Stacy Gardner, Communications Director, National Ski Areas Association, Lakewood, CO)

Ski Area and Skier Trends

The 199596 season marked 54 million downhill skiing visits, up 2.5 percent from the prior season, butdown slightly from the record number of 54.6 million skier/snowboarder visits during the 1993-94 season.Although the number of resorts nationwide has shrunk from more than 700 in 1986 to 519 in 1996, thenumber of skier/snowboarder visits has remained relatively stable. What this means is that the survivingresorts are getting bigger; they have been able to meet consumers’ needs and expectations. According to datagathered for the National Ski Areas Association’s Economic Analysis of United States Ski Areas (1996), whichprovides an in-depth review of resort financial data, U.S. resorts’ operating profits increased an average of 10percent during the past three seasons, based on a sampling of 95 resorts. Although weather will always remaina factor, resorts today are financially more stable and better equipped to deal with the future.

According to the National Sporting Goods Association, 9.3 million skiers and 2.2 million snowboarderswere on the slopes in 1995. Although that represents only five percent of the U.S. population, these individu-als are financially secure Americans who have a disposable income to enjoy this type of recreation. Accordingto Americun Demogruphics, future U.S. population trends favor growth in the ski industry. There are 78million baby boomers (born 1946-1964), 44 million Generation Xers (born 19651977), and 72 million echoboomers, the children of baby boomers, (born 1978-1994). The fact that visits to resorts in the recent pasthave remained stable is significant considering the 24- to 34-year-old segment represents about 25 percentof the customer base, the greatest percentage of all ages. Most of these individuals are part of the GenerationX population, which is about 30 percent less than the number of baby boomers. Children arq a critical marketfor the ski industry because these echo boomers will replace the Generation Xers on the slopes, and theirnumbers are nearly the same as the baby boomers.

The trend of mountain resort consolidation continues to increase in the 1990s. The ski industry is nodifferent from others like banking, publishing, or cable broadcasting. A number of key industry leaders-e.g.,the former owner of Vail Associates and the chairman of the American Ski Company-have purchased nu-merous resorts all over the country, which is a sign that they are confident the echo boomer population willtake to the slopes soon.

Future of the Ski Industry

The National Ski Areas Association’s 1997 Future of the Industry Summit provided a forum for moun-tain resort owners and operators to gain insight into future sociological, economic, and demographic trends.For example, white males, who historically have made up the majority of customers, are shrinking as a demo-graphic group. Resorts are exploring strategies to reach nontraditional markets. Strategies such as relation-ship marketing, strategic alliances, and business re-engineering are becoming integral components of a resort’smarketing plans. For example, one major ski company has built strategic alliances with international bever-age, energy, automobile, and credit card companies to support their efforts in increasing the skier/snowboardermarket and retaining customers. The most powerful undercurrents driving the mountain recreation industryinto the future are a combination of economic forces, changing customer values and demographics, andtechnological opportunities.


Cross-Country SkiingDespite a decline in the number of Nordic skiers since the 1980s boom years, the number of commer-

cial cross country ski areas in the United States increased 51 percent between 1987 and 1996 (Table 111.34).The distribution of U.S. cross country ski areas is very similar to that of downhill ski areas (Figure 111.19).Sites are scattered throughout the West, but there appears to be an especially heavy concentration in NewEngland and the Northeast. The 636 commercial ski areas nationwide are defined by the following character-istics: (1) professional ski school and staff, (2) ski shops with rental equipment, (3) groomed and markedtrails, and (4) base lodging with amenities. Most of these areas are operated as private businesses that mustoffer these services to attract consumers. Only a handful of the areas are managed by local governments.

Figure 111.19: Counties with Commercial Cross Country Ski Areas, 1996

Source: Cmss-Counby Ski Areas Association ski area database. 1996.

Approximately two-thirds of cross country ski areas are in the North. Ski areas in the North grew atabout the same rate as nationally, a 49 percent increase since 1987. The Rocky Mountain region is a distantsecond with 22 percent of the U.S. ski areas. This region’s areas grew 57 percent between 1987 and 1996. ThePacific Coast added ski areas at a 51 percent rate. The South added two cross country ski areas to its 1987total of just one.

Of course, cross country skiing is not limited to established commercial areas. Often, it is done on trailsin public parks and forests, golf courses, private land, and even city streets and sidewalks. Conclusive data donot exist, but it is believed that a relatively small percentage of all cross country skiing in the United Statesoccurs at the established commercial areas. The cross country ski industry is a major advocate of skiing atcommercial centers, however, because of the instruction, service, and improved conditions that make forsatisfying skiing experiences.

In recent years, some nontraditional winter activities have gained popularity and begun to use the sameresources that support downhill and cross-country skiing (Newman, 1997). Three popular activities use whatmight be called “sliding” devices. Snowboards are shorter and wider than regular skis and thus easier tocontrol. Other innovative products are snow skates, which emulate in-line skates on snow, and snow bikes,which are not new but are gaining in popularity. Also prominent at ski areas and other winter sports centersare more traditional activities such as snowshoeing, tubing, and sledding.


Cross Country Skiing Trends in the United States

(By Chris Frado, President, Cross Country Ski Areas AssociationJ8)

Cross country skiing, Nordic skiing, ski touring, ski skating, track skiing, backcountry skiing, and telemarkskiing are the names that distinguish “free-heel” skiing from “fixed-heel” skiing, better known as alpine ordownhill skiing. Certainly, skiing downhill is part of cross country skiing but unlike the downhill or alpineskiers, cross country skiers also ski up hills and across flat and rolling terrain. Cross country ski boots are onlyattached to the ski at the toe of the boot and the heels are free to move up off the ski. This allows the skier towalk uphill on cross country skis, classically glide along in a diagonal (walking or running) stride, and executethe graceful telemark turn when descending a slope. The information in this article relates primarily to recre-ational cross country skiing on marked, groomed trails at both commercial ski centers and noncommercialtrail systems as well as backyard, park, and golf course skiing.“9

Cross Countrv Skiin in the United States

The cross country ski industry represents some 3.5 million recreational enthusiasts, 500 commercialcross country ski centers, and 19 ski equipment suppliers.40 The industry is served by several organizations:a) Cross Country Ski Areas Association represents the ski centers that operate commercial trail systems; b)SnowSports Industries America represents equipment suppliers and hosts the largest national ski buyersshow; c) National Ski Patrol provides training and certification for safety patrollers; d) Professional Ski In-structors of America provides training and certification for individuals teaching skiing; and e) U.S. Skiinggoverns and sanctions Nordic ski racing, ski jumping, and biathlon events.

The cross country skiing industry in the U.S. dates back to the 196Os, became organized in the early1970s and enjoyed a boom in the 1980s when the number of users approached 6.5 million. This numberleveled off in the 1990s to about half as many users. Not surprisingly, weather plays a major role in theparticipation level of skiing. Changes in snowfall and associated weather patterns have contributed to a de-cline in the popularity of cross country skiing. Additionally, what was once sold as an advantage has evolvedinto disadvantage. The industry was launched with the rallying phrase, “If you can walk, you can cross coun-try ski.” This lured millions of Americans to try it in the 1970s and 1980s.

For thousands of Americans, however, walking on skis slogging through the snow without the benefit ofa ski lesson or a groomed trail often left them tired and frustrated. Skis were tough to turn or control and oftendelaminated, boots were cold and nonsupportive, bindings were functional but not comfortable, and bamboopoles broke easily. If a person kept at it, usually it was due to his or her love of the outdoors. Self teaching isnot a recommended way to learn skiing. Proper instruction on groomed trails shortens the beginner’s learningcurve and increases his or her enjoyment. To further challenge industry growth, the accessibility of freeplaces to ski without developed facilities perpetuates an attitude that lessons or groomed trails are not neces-sarily desirable. Further, by not using developed skiing facilities, the skier’s exposure to advances in ski equip-ment, clothing, technique, and professional instruction are limited.

Today technological advancements in ski equipment are at an all-time high. Commercial trail operatorsuse sophisticated machine grooming methods to prepare the snow surface for ideal ski conditions. Initial skiinstruction on a machine groomed trail surface helps considerably in making cross country skiing a rewardingexperience in the long run. With skiing skills, confidence, and preparedness, the cross country skier is muchmore likely to enjoy the experience.

J8John Frado, consultant with Nordic Group International, a land planning firm specializing in trail-based recreation facilities, assistedin preparing this article.

“YIimilar to the downhill skiing article, this article also does not agree with Table III.35 about the number of commercial cross countryski areas nationwide, even though the data came from the same source. It is likely that the article does not include public sector crosscountry ski areas in its count, for example, those operated by local parks and recreation departments. The Table III.35 data may alsoinclude some ski area lodges or resorts that were subsequently deleted from the ski area list upon closer inspection.

4oExtreme backcountry skiing and lift-serviced telemark skiing are not covered in this article.


Cross Countrv Skiing Trends

Forces that are driving changes that significantly affect cross country skiing are global warming, incon-sistent weather patterns, people’s desire for health and fitness, value, the popularity of ski skating and theneed for family recreation opportunities. As winter snowfall becomes less predictable in regions that wereonce guaranteed reliable snow coverage, it becomes harder to sustain skiers’ interests. Many people havetaken up other winter activities to replace cross country skiing when snow is doubtful or non-existent. Crosscountry skiing remains an excellent means for individuals seeking to improve their health and fitness. Mostexperts agree that there is no better fitness activity than cross country skiing because it is both an aerobicactivity and uses all the major muscle groups while not stressing the body’s joints.

With respect to value, cross country skiing is an affordable activity requiring an initial investment in therange of $300 to $600 for skis, poles, boots, and a compatible binding system. On average, a trail ticket at across country ski area for a weekend day of skiing on a machine groomed trail system with marked trails anda map costs $7 to $15. A group ski lesson adds approximately $10 to $15 to the cost of a day of recreation ata professional Nordic ski center. Ski centers add value to the trail ticket by providing restrooms, a heatedlounge area, and/or warming huts on the trails, food service, and a trained staff to answer questions and offeradvice on the trails best suited for the individual skier.

The majority of cross country skiers tend to be middle-aged males and females in the mid-to-upper levelincome categories. As this demographic group brings young children with them skiing, the Nordic centershave responded by becoming increasingly family-friendly, Special sleds with a waist harness for the skier toeasily pull children on the trails have replaced backpack child carriers on ski trails. Children’s terrain gardensoffer kids a visually exciting area to ski around colorful fairyland creatures that invite play on humps, bumps,tunnels, and small hills. Most ski centers offer children’s ski rentals as well as adult sizes.

The popularity of ski skating has affected cross country skiing by requiring wider trails and smooth orcrowned trail surfaces.41 Additionally, because tracks are undesirable to the ski skater, trails must be groomeddifferently. The usual solution seen at ski centers is to widen the groomed trail surface to 16-18 feet and placethe tracks on the sides leaving a center skating lane, or place double tracks on one side with the other side forskating. Also seen, though not as common, is a restriction on skating to designated trails.

Current Issues

To promote growth, the cross country ski industry is promoting lessons on groomed trails as the mostproductive way to learn and enjoy skiing. It is assumed, as has been demonstrated in other activities, that alesson and optimum learning conditions will contribute to a higher level of capture and retention of lifelongskiers. Skiers can choose from developed cross country ski areas, many at downhill ski resorts, county andstate parks, golf courses that permit skiers and snowmobilers, open fields, pastures, and forested trails. Theease of access to these resources poses some problems in addition to current policies that favor multiple-usetrails.

While many snowmobile trails present an attractive machine-packed ski trail, a cross country skier ona snowmobile trail becomes a hazard to the snow machine operator. Further, with the speeds that ski skatersare capable of and the quiet movement of a skier, collisions at intersections and around corners are of growingconcern. Perhaps the greatest conflict between skiers and snowmobilers on the same trail is an inequity inresponsibility. Generally, the snowmobile user has received permission for use of the trail and contributed insome fashion (i.e., volunteer labor and/or licensing fees) to the trail maintenance. The skier, on the otherhand, may be regarded as a trespasser using the trail without permission or investment. Snowmobile trailsshould be marked to exclude skiers or clearly marked and designated for joint use. Compatible off-seasonuses of ski trails are mountain biking, hiking, walking, and horseback riding.

Shared trail use with snowshoers is appropriate when there is respect for the machine prepared skitrack (grooves in the snow) in the trail. The industry is working to develop trail courtesies and educate usersso that snowshoers and cross country skiers can enjoy the same trails. More than half of the nation’s skicenters welcome snowshoers and are inviting their skiing customers to also rent and try snowshoeing. Therecent popularity of snowshoeing is an opportunity for cross country ski trail providers to reach out to othertrail users.

41 Ski skating is a relatively new ski technique mimicking ice skating; the skis and arms are thrust out to either side in a V shape. Mostskiers find skating more thrilling than the traditional forward movement of diagonal striding that resembles walking or jogging. Skatingis a considerably fast and physically demanding ski technique favored by racers and fitness skiers.


In some places commercial cross country ski areas are threatened by government agencies and munici-palities that provide groomed ski trails without an associated user fee. This policy makes it more difficult forprivate business to compete in the marketplace, perpetuates an attitude that cross country ski trails should befree, and discourages beginning skiers from taking a lesson at a ski area. It creates an interesting dilemma.Access to many places to ski is one of the attractions of cross country skiing, but experiences on free trailswithout instruction or groomed trails can contribute to unrewarding experiences and high drop-out rates. Topromote the benefits of ski lessons and groomed trails, the cross country ski industry conducts a nationwidecelebration of cross country skiing, Ski Fest, the second Sunday in January. Ski areas across the country andin selected cities offer free cross country ski lessons on groomed trails to beginners. The annual event hasintroduced more than 12,000 people to cross country skiing the past three years.

Statistics on cross country skiing use and related revenues are lacking. Demographic information onthe users is readily available and unlike many sports shows strong participation (49 percent) by women.Equipment sales are well documented by SnowSports Industries America, but unfortunately many types ofskiing are included in the cross country category: track, touring, and backcountry.** It is unclear whethertelemark skiing is included in the cross country ski statistics. The industry has been negligent in collectingskier visit data and measuring itself. Beginning in the 1997-1998 season, the Cross Country Ski Areas Associa-tion will collect skier visit data from its more than 200 member ski centers in the United States. Then ananalysis will be done to determine local revenues generated by skiers on lodging, meals, and associated ser-vices.

Consumers are demonstrating a desire for variety and choices while recreating. Field studies indicateNordic skiers are more inclined to ski at a variety of areas than are downhill skiers. Ski areas find that theircustomers want recommendations of other places where they can cross country ski. In response, some Nordicski areas have adopted sister areas to cross promote, put out brochures from other ski areas, and have staffmembers share their personal favorites with customers. Not all ski areas are participating in these measures.To add value and choice, most Nordic centers are expanding their menu of winter recreational opportunities.Snowshoeing is a widely favored alternative activity. Other options include kicksleds, tubing hills, dogsledding,ice skating, sleigh rides and nature interpretive programs. The most requested, but least offered, activity arepackage programs for skiers which include an orientation, an educational component, food and beverage, anda recreational activity with a leader offering guidance. There is currently much interest in women’s program-ming and some interest in longer programs along the lines of a ski camp for several days.

Future Trends

Based on current issues and trends, as well as observations of the industry, we expect the followingfuture trends for cross country skiing in the United States:

There will befewer small cross country ski centers. Smaller businesses will face escalating operatingcosts and will be unable to compete with the more sophisticated Nordic centers, which have expandedtheir recreational menu and upgraded facilities.Snowmuking at cross country ski areas will become more commonplace. With guarantees of reliablesnow coverage and consistent ski conditions, participation levels will increase.Manufacturers will simplify ski choices by consoliduting ski types and offering simpler, one- or two-choice sizing of skis.Economics will force government agencies and municipalities to implement competitioe user fees forsophisticated machine-groomed cross country ski trails or privatize those areas.As the current population of downhill skiers age, there will likely be an increase in cross-ooers toNordic skiing. The sport is more forgiving on the joints yet offers much of the same outdoor winterexperience that downhill skiers enjoy. In addition, since so many downhill ski resorts have a Nordiccenter, the cross-over skier will be able to patronize a familiar ski area while cross country skiing. It willbe to the advantage of downhill ski areas to promote cross country skiing.The importance of weuther on the future of cross country skiing cannot be minimized. However, changesin global weather patterns, perhaps due to global warming, might be contributing to reduced snowprecipitation at some ski areas.

4’Track skiing includes recreational groomed trail skiing and performance skiing-racing and fitness skiing-on groomed trails. Touringincludes recreational backyard and ungroomed trail skiing on easy to moderate terrain. Backcountry skiing is done off trail, usuallywhile carrying gear and often involving challenging and extreme terrain.


. Continuing medical research on the health benefits of reducing stress and increasing fitness could leadto more interest in winter fitness activities. Cross country skiing could benefit from renewed concernfor personal fitness and stress reduction.

Other Recreation BusinessesAmerican Business Information, Inc. (ABI) keeps a database of firms in the United States that advertise

in yellow page telephone directories. Firms are identified by their four-digit Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) codes and ABI adds two more digits for further detail. Among the businesses that advertise are numer-ous land and water-based recreation businesses, most of which are in the 7,000 Services series of the SIC. Themost valuable information from ABI is a list of the number of firms and their locations for each six-digitspecialized type of business.

An increase or decrease in the number of firms providing a particular service or product is an indicatorof a change in the private sector. A change in the number of firms can reflect an increase or decrease inwillingness to advertise, but changes in advertising behavior alone certainly cannot explain most changes inthe number of listed firms. The numbers of listed firms nationally and by region in 1995 and 1996 were talliedfor: marinas, boat rentals, bicycle tours and rentals, organized camps, golf courses (public), golf courses(private), archery ranges, guide and outfitter services, and rifle and pistol ranges

Table 111.35: Number of Selected Recreation Buisnesses by Region, 1985-1996

Type of Business YearNorth

RegionSouth Rocky Mountains Pa&% Coast U.S. Total

Marinas

Boat rental

Bicycle rentaland tours

Organized camp

Public golf courses’

Private golf courses?

Archery range

Guide andoutfitter service

Rifle and pistol range

1985 2,348 1,964 157 539 5,0081996 2,822 2,236 161 552 5,7711985 1,782 1,732 173 1,148 4,8351996 1,602 2,054 239 907 4,802

1985 245 179 76 54 5541996 218 266 264 190 9381985 5,165 1,838 577 1,050 8,6301996 3,737 1,722 476 790 6,7251985 3,406 1,369 638 748 6,1611996 4,576 2,353 1,020 949 8,8981985 932 921 246 288 2,3871996 1,117 1,267 282 335 3,0011985 152 26 31 17 2261996 291 69 53 27 440

1985 83 93 397 325 8981996 190 361 527 252 1,3301985 126 130 38 57 3511996 182 206 51 118 557

‘Golf courses open to the public, but not necessarily owned by a public agency.

?Golf courses open to members only, e.g., country clubs.

Source: American Business Information, Inc. (ABI). Omaha, Nebraska. 1985 and 1996.


Numbers of firms of most types increased between 1985 and 1996. One exception was organized camps,which declined 22 percent nationally (Table III.35).43 The number of camps decreased at the highest rates inthe North and Pacific Coast. Boat rental firms essentially stayed the same, registering a drop of less than onepercent. Gains in the South and Rocky Mountains were offset by losses in the North and Pacific Coast.

Except for guides and outfitters and bicycle tours and rentals, there were more businesses in both yearsin the more populated eastern regions. Gains for all other businesses were 25 percent or more. The number ofarchery ranges nearly doubled. Bicycle tours and rentals grew 69 percent, undoubtedly reflecting the growingpopularity of mountain bikes over the past decade. Rifle and pistol ranges grew 59 percent, but each startedwith a relatively low number of firms in 1985 (as did archery ranges). Guide and outfitter services (48 per-cent) also increased nearly 50 percent, despite a decline in the number of firms in the Pacific Coast. Thenumber of these businesses more than doubled in the North and nearly tripled in the South to offset that loss.Golf courses, both of those open to the public and those open only to members, also grew. Courses open to thepublic grew especially fast in the South (72 percent) and Rocky Mountains (60 percent). Private golf coursesalso grew fastest in the South, with an increase of 38 percent.

A few other recreation businesses for which data were not available in 1985 (not shown in Table 111.35)are tennis clubs open to the public and to members only, tourist attractions, and canoe rental/outfitter ser-vices. In 1996, there were 1,252 private tennis clubs listed and 816 public tennis clubs in the United States.Over two-thirds (68 percent) of the private clubs are in the eastern regions, led by the North with 36 percent.Over half (56 percent) of public tennis clubs are in the North. The North and South together have 80 percentof tennis clubs open to the public. Probably due to the influence of Florida, over half (55 percent) of the listedtourist attractions are in the South. These attractions include a variety of businesses, ranging from amuse-ment and entertainment places to museums and natural resource-based attractions. Also included are histori-cal sites and other public attractions. The two eastern regions have just under three-fourths (74 percent) ofthe listed tourist attractions in 1996. The ABI database also listed 430 canoe rental and outfitter firms in1996, the large majority (76 percent) located in the North. A very small percentage of these firms (threepercent)are in the two Western regions. It is probably safe to say that canoeing is largely an eastern activity,whereas whitewater rafting is popular throughout the United States wherever adequate streams are located.

A major recreation industry which scarcely existed 10 years ago in the United States is in-line skating.Rentals and especially sales of in-line skates have emerged as perhaps one of the biggest recreation busi-nesses, and certainly the fastest growing. Further, in-line skating has gone well beyond fad status to becomea significant influence on American culture, especially among youth. Influence is also being felt on the wayrecreation spaces are being planned and managed, in particular popular urban parks and linear paths.

The In-line Skating Industry: Trends, Issues, and Futures

(By Gilbert M. Clark, Executive Director, International In-line Skating Association, Kensington, MD)

In-line skating is the fastest growing recreational activity in the United States. It also is growing at avery rapid pace internationally. This outcome could not have been predicted in 1980 when a young hockeyplayer named Scott Olson, looking for a way to practice his skills during the Minnesota summers, came acrossan old pair of skates in a sporting goods store in Minneapolis. The skates had four wheels aligned in a row,rather than in the traditional four corner arrangement associated with roller skates. In fact, in-line skates arenot new; they were used by 19th century thespians to duplicate onstage the effect of ice skating. Their usageby everyday folks would have to wait until outdoor pavement was common. Olson saw these possibilities andwas soon duplicating the old skates in his basement for his friends. From that inauspicious beginning hasarisen a $1 billion industry in the United States alone.

Olson sold his business, which he named Rollerblade, to a local businessman who was able to bringresources to the venture that led to the company’s further growth. During the early 198Os, Rollerblade contin-ued to refine the product and added recreational and fitness skates. Today, about 85 percent of in-line skatersuse fitness or recreational skates. As in-line skating began to gain public acceptance, other companies en-tered the market. Typically, these companies had extensive related experience, such as making ice skates,roller skates, and ski products or were involved in the in-line industry as suppliers to in-line skate manufac-

‘“According to the American Camping Association (ACA), the number of organized camps in the United States has not declined as theABI data on advertising firms indicates. The ACA says there are approximately 8,500 organized camps in the country in 1997, which iscloser to ABI’s 1985 figure (see the accompanying article written by the ACA). Thus, the ABI data may not be a reliable indicator of thenumber or organized camps, especially since most camps are non-profit organizations and may have chosen not to advertise.


turers. By the end of the decade, there were about 10 skate companies. There also were a number of wheeland bearing manufacturers making both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and replacement parts. Theindustry was showing signs of maturing.

A key development during this period was the recognition that in-line skating was an activity that noone had learned-like they had bicycling-as a child. Adults brought concerns about safety that had to beaddressed if the sport were to grow beyond a child-based market. This meant developing safety and educationprograms. Several manufacturers developed innovative programs, including one to train and certify in-lineskate instructors. The industry was quick to develop and advocate the use of protective gear and safe skatingbehavior. These programs were assumed by the International In-line Skating Association (IISA), which wasformed in 1991 by the existing members of the industry. The most recent phase of this industry’s growth hasseen the entry into the market of a second wave of shoe and ski companies seeking to use their particularexpertise to gain a foothold in the very competitive marketplace. Their success is uncertain because theexisting companies have a decade or more of experience and knowledge in the market.

Today, the industry is comprised of over 200 companies in the U.S. alone, and many others in Canada,Europe, and Asia, which manufacture boots, wheels, bearings, hockey equipment, playing surfaces, and pro-tective gear used by an estimated 50 million people or more worldwide. Participation in in-line competitivesports is also growing, led by in-line hockey’s popularity, and includes stunt skating and in-line racing.

Recent Trends

While the industry grew around 30 percent a year during the early 1990s 1996 saw a slowing of thisrapid growth. Subsequent analysis indicates that this flattening of the growth curve was precipitated by a poorChristmas selling season in 1995 and a buildup of inventory that subsequently was affected by poor springweather in 1996. In addition, there was a disruption at the retail level when a number of large sporting goodschain outlets went out of business and disposed of existing inventory at rock bottom prices. In fact, whileshipments from skate companies were down in 1 996, according to one research firm, participation in thesport grew during the same period by 19 percent. It is expected that these problems have resolved themselvesand that 1997 will see an improved climate for skate sales.

The acceptance of in-line skating as a legitimate recreational and sporting activity by nearly 31 millionAmericans in 1996 has generated concerns about health and safety. The rapid increase in the number ofskaters saw a concomitant increase in injuries associated with the activity. In 1995, about 100,000 in-lineskaters were admitted to emergency rooms, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Thisnumber, while unacceptably large because protective gear could have prevented most of these injuries, never-theless produced an injury rate less than that of traditional sports such as basketball and baseball, and muchless than that of bicycling. The in-line industry has clearly been able to demonstrate that in-line skating is asafe activity, particularly when protective gear is worn and the skater has taken a lesson.

As a fitness activity, there are few things better than in-line skating. Numerous scientific studies dem-onstrate that in-line skating produces an aerobic and exercise benefit equivalent to running. This benefit isgenerated without the joint and impact damage associated with running, and comes at a modest cost com-pared to exercise equipment and health club memberships. Again, the industry sees the fitness benefits asattractive to older Americans who are looking for a way to stay in shape while enjoying the outdoors.

In-line skates are used in a wide variety of competitive sports, which underscores the amazing versatil-ity of this product. In-line hockey is the fastest growing sport in America, with about three million partici-pants in 1995. It is played at every level, by men and women, children and adults, and has spawned a profes-sional league. Stunt or aggressive skating is also growing rapidly, but is basically a sport for youth and youngadults. It has proven to be a very popular spectator sport as part of the “extreme games” phenomenon. In-lineracing has been slower to develop although it is practiced by a dedicated group of athletes, and efforts areunderway to open this exciting sport to recreational skaters. Altogether, it is estimated that competitive sportactivities make up 15 percent of the in-line market.

Current Issues and Outlook

There are several issues that confront the in-line industry at this time. Maintaining access to outdoorvenues and facilities is a principle concern. Another is expanding the market for in-line skates by educatingthe general adult population that skating is safe and easily learned. A third is adjusting and responding tochanges inevitably wrought by the continued growth of the category.


In-line skaters are unique in that they have attributes of both a vehicle and pedestrian. To be enjoyedfully, in-line skating requires smooth pavement. Generally this is found on roads or bike paths. Experiencedskaters view themselves as vehicles, capable of skating on roads with the same rights and responsibilities asbicyclists. Many skaters however, feel more comfortable skating on sidewalks or recreational paths. Fortu-nately, such paths have proliferated under the federal transportation law enacted in 1991, The IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).

ISTEA, up for renewal in 1997, has generated thousands of miles of paved surfaces, thus helping tostimulate the growth of in-line skating. A key issue will be the continuation of the Transportation Enhance-ments section of the law, which has generated funds for non-highway construction projects. This provisionwill be opposed by highway lobbies. The bicycle and in-line industries will vigorously advocate its renewal,and thus far have found support from the Clinton Administration.

Access to the roads is also extremely important. Unfortunately, many localities have determined thatin-line skating should be banned from their streets. This has been done with little thought to the effect onadults and others who need access to streets for transportation and fitness skating. Generally, these bans havebeen prompted by reactions to skating in congested areas or other inappropriate locations rather than byactual accidents to skaters. To protect skaters’ access, the industry has taken the initiative in promoting theconstruction of skate parks. Such parks contain a variety of facilities, including ramps and rails for aggressiveskaters, and hockey rinks.

The perception that in-line skating is just for kids prevents millions of adults from taking up an activitythat is both fun and healthful. The in-line industry has addressed this by emphasizing the benefits of instruc-tion. The IISA Instructor Certification Program has trained thousands of people to teach skating. A singlelesson can help overcome fear and reduce the potential of falling. IISA also promotes the use of protectivegear. Studies have shown that 90 percent of in-line injuries can be prevented by the use of wrist guards, kneeand elbow pads, and helmets. In many large cities, the IISA sponsors National Skate Patrol units, whichconsist of volunteers who keep others from skating dangerously and help new skaters with basic skills such asstopping. Skate patrols help keep conflicts from arising with bicyclists and pedestrians in crowded venuessuch as New York’s Central Park.

The in-line skating industry has seen several predictable stages of growth and is likely to see severalmore. The flattening of the sales growth curve in 1996 resulted in economic loss for some players, particularlythose in the low-end segment of the market. Sales in large discount chains were particularly affected in 1996.There has been some fallout as a result. At the same time, new companies are entering the market. Some arewell financed and are likely to help create additional exposure for the industry through their marketing ef-forts. The upshot may be that they will help grow the industry; that is, they will increase the size of the pie,rather than take shares from the existing pie.

In the past few years the industry has also seen the entrance of many small companies that produceperipheral equipment such as clothing, special wheels, and other gadgets. This is typical of a growing industry.These companies provide innovation and enthusiasm and some may eventually grow into very big companies.

It is expected that there will be continued growth in the number of in-line skating participants in theUnited States in the next five years. The number of skaters could approach 50 million if current trendscontinue. In addition, there will be at least that number of in-line skaters in Europe, Asia, and South America.U.S. companies and foreign company subsidiaries located in the United States will play a significant role inthis expansion. In-line skate retailers will be better prepared to sell skate fit and performance that meetcustomer needs and expectations. At present, in-line skate specialty stores account for about 23 percent of allsales. This segment likely will grow as customers seek better advice and service.

There will be a continued need to stress safety issues and to have available professional instruction fornovices. This will inevitably be integrated into any marketing campaigns aimed at adults. As the years passthere will be millions of adults who learned how to skate as children. At this point, skating will be viewed as anormal lifetime activity, like bicycling.

Product innovation, always a strong point of this industry, will continue. Advanced materials such astitanium, magnesium, metal composites, and graphite will continue to be used in a variety of applications. Inaddition to making skates lighter and stronger, manufacturers will look for ways to make them as user-friendlyas possible. Replacing laces with buckles is one example that has been met with consumer approval. Click-offframes and wheels, frames that are easily aligned to compensate for the user’s unique physical attributes,braking systems, and removable frames that attach to walkable boots are all examples of ideas under constantrefinement by skate manufacturers.

The future of the in-line skating industry is bright, but not without challenges. Questions concerningaccess to streets and paths are the ones of greatest concern to the industry. These questions should be an-

I


swered in the next five years. The goal of the IISA is that they be answered in an affirmative manner, thusremoving any roadblocks to in-line skating’s growth and popularity for many years to come.

SUPPLY INDEX FOR OUTDOOR RECREATIONAgencies that manage public land often need to summarize the availability of recreation opportunities,

and compare availability over time or locations. Evaluation of the adequacy of recreation opportunities hasbeen an important part of many state and national assessments of outdoor recreation (Outdoor RecreationResources Review Commission, 1962; Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1973; California Department of Parksand Recreation, 1989; Cordell, et al., 1990). Summaries can help planners and policymakers to visualize andunderstand trends in resource availability. So far, this Chapter has presented information on a wide array ofseparate recreation resources. In this section, we summarize the spatial distributions of the most significantresources and the people who use them.

We selected 50 resource variables from which to develop summary measures. First, resources withsimilar variation in abundance across counties were identified. These resource measures were then linearlycombined into one value. That value represents an index of the availability of that set of recreation resources.

Fourteen types of recreation resources with distinct patterns of distribution were identified. Two ofthese types describe urban, developed resources that are often associated with population centers. Six de-scribe resources associated with dispersed or ‘great outdoors’ activities. Four types describe the distributionof water-related resources, and two types describe the distribution of winter-related resources. Table III.36provides a summary of the specific recreation resources that relate to each resource type.

Table 111.36: Interpretation of Retained Factors for Outdoor Recreation Supply Index

Factor

Local Facilities

Open SpaceGreat Outdoors

Wildlife Land

Interpretation

Developed, local use facilities, closely tied to population growth. Associated withlocal park and recreation departments.Fairgrounds, greenways, rail-trails.Great outdoors resources. Mountains, wilderness, Forest Service and National ParkService land, and outfitter and guide services.Land set aside for habitat and wildlife: primarily owned by Fish and Wildlife Serviceand The Nature Conservancy.

State andPrivate ForestsWestern Land

State parks and privately-owned forest land.Western agricultural land, mostly Bureau of Land Management and private agricul-tural acres.

Camping Areas Camping areas (public and private), and hunting/fishing opportunities.Other Federal Land Other federal recreation land (mostly TVA, COE, BuRec), and public camping oppor-

tunities.Large Water Bodies Coastal and large water body resources: marinas, fishing, other boating opportunities.Whitewater Wild, scenic, and whitewater river opportunities.Flatwater Flatwater and wetlands areas.Lowland Rivers Lowland river resources, especially rivers near wetlands or coasts.Developed Winter Developed winter (i.e., ski) opportunities, and forest land.Undeveloped Winter Undeveloped agricultural and public recreation land in mountains.

These summary measures permit regional and county-level assessments of major types of recreationresources. To evaluate how well off one county is with respect to any type of recreation resource, one mustlook not only at the resources and user population in that county, but also at the resources and population insurrounding counties. In the following series of maps, counties that have above-average availability of re-sources per capita relative to other counties within a 200-mile radius are shown.


Figure 111.20: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Local Facilities

Mapping Counties with Resource Abundance

Counties with greater-than-average per capita availability of local facilities (henceforth, resource sum-maries or factors are denoted in uppercase as in Table III.32), the first urban abundance factor, are mostlyalong the Eastern Seaboard and Piedmont, the western Gulf Coast, the shores of Lakes Huron, Erie, andOntario,-and in portions of Florida, California, Arizona, and Washington (Figure 111.20). In essence, theseresources are close to the highly urbanized areas in the East, on the Gulf of Mexico, and on the West Coast. Inaddition, retirement areas in Florida, Arizona, and South Carolina have above-average availability for theseresources.

Figure 111.21: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Open Space

Open space, the second urban factor, is found mostly in the Pacific Northwest, the Northeast, the upperMidwest, and in the central Rockies (Figure 111.21). Smaller pockets of availability are found in central Floridaand southern Arizona. Rather than being tied to population centers, these resources are tied to transportationcorridors, including areas that have or have had extensive rail networks. The tie between these networks andfairgrounds may come from the agricultural heritage of these areas. Fairgrounds in the Midwest were oftencentered in county seats, which had rail lines to transport crops and livestock to market centers.


Figure 111.22: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Great Outdoors Resources

Not surprisingly, the greatest concentrations of the first land-based factor, Great Outdoors, are in the 11westernmost states (Figure 111.22). Almost no counties east of the 105th meridian have above-average avail-ability of these resources, except for southern Florida, extreme southern Texas, and the northern reaches ofNew England. These pockets of resource abundance are due to areas such as Everglades NP, Acadia NP, andthe Green and White Mountain National Forests. The Appalachian Mountains contain some of these types ofresources. However, their size and concentration is generally insufficient to compare with the relative avail-ability in the Western-states.

Preserved habitat areas or Wildlife Land, the second land factor, is available to residents in most coun-ties in the East, from Louisiana to Maine. In addition, relative abundance of resources exists for populationsnear arid areas in the West and in the northern portions of Michigan, Montana, and Wisconsin. These areasare especially important in offering opportunities for viewing wildlife, nature study, and outdoor photography.

Figure 111.23: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Wildlife Land

State park and private forest acres make up the third land factor, labeled stute and priaateforests.These resources are relatively plentiful in the Middle Atlantic and New England states, in much of the DeepSouth, the Upper Lake states, the Four Corners region, and the Pacific Northwest (Figure 111.24). In the West,state parks are a greater contributor than private forests. In the Deep South, the opposite is true. In theNortheast and Upper Lake states, both contribute approximately equally.

I 70 Outdoor Recreation in American Life

Figure 111.24: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of State and Private Forests

The fourth land factor, Western land, describes privately owned crop, pasture, and range land andpublic range land like that managed by the BLM. The availability of these resources per capita is greatest incounties west of the 96th meridian, except for western Washington and northwestern Oregon (Figure 111.25).The pattern of above-average availability is strongly influenced by the location of large BLM holdings. Thearea of relative abundance looks much like that in Figure 111.22, the first land factor describing great outdoorsresources, but extends further eastward into the Great Plains states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

Figure 111.25: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Western Land

The fifth land-based factor, cumping urea, describes mostly developed camping opportunities. Thegreatest concentration of these opportunities per capita are in parts of the Middle Atlantic and New Englandstates, the Upper Midwest, including Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, southern Texas and Florida, Cali-fornia and Arizona, and the area in and around the Nebraska Panhandle (Figure 111.26).


Figure 111.26: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Camping Areas

Resources related to the last of the land-based factors, Other federal land, primarily include federal landmanaged by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Army Corps of Engineers (GE), and the Bureau ofReclamation (BoR). Counties that have above-average access to this factor are located in several regions(Figure 111.27). Near the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers from Louisiana northward, high availability is due toCE land. For counties in the western portion of the Tennessee River basin, both TVA and CE resources areavailable. In Pacific Coast states and Arizona, BR areas are available.

Figure 111.27: Counties with Above-Average Per Capita Availability of Other Federal Land

Large water bodies, the first factor for water-based recreation resources, includes marinas and otherprivate sector enterprises found along coasts and large water bodies. Counties with higher-than-average ac-cess to these resources are mostly along the coasts (Table 111.37). In addition, most counties in Michigan fallinto the above-average category, due to proximity to several Great Lakes. Large national recreation areas,including Flaming Gorge, Lake Mead, Glen Canyon, and large reservoirs in the West account for the inlandportion of the map shading.

Whitewater river opportunities make up the second water-based resource factor. These opportunitiesare available to most counties in the West, due to relatively large numbers of wild and scenic rivers in the


Rockies, Cascades, and Sierras (Figure 111.27). In the East, availability is greatest for counties that are close tothe Appalachian Mountains. The portions of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin that are close to Lake Supe-rior and several Texas counties along the Rio Grande also have above-average access to these types of oppor-tunities.

The third water-related factor, flatwater, describes co-existent fiatwater (lakes, ponds, and reservoirs)and wetland resources, To a noticeable extent, private firms that rent or livery canoes are also tied to thisresource type. There appear to be five geographic clusters of counties with above-average access to thesetypes of water resources (Figure 111.28). In the Southeast, these resources occur in counties in the CoastalPlain and in the western portion of the Mississippi River drainage through Louisiana and Arkansas. Anothercluster appears in northern New York and New England. The abundance of lakes in the upper Midwest isevident in a cluster of counties that spreads across the northern tier of the country from Michigan to easternMontana. The same large reservoirs that contribute to the large water bodies and coastal resources factor alsocontribute to an area of availability in the West that stretches from southwestern Wyoming though most ofUtah, and into southern Arizona and California. Finally, several large lakes, including Chelan, Priest, andRoss, contribute strongly to higher availability scores for the northernmost counties in Washington and Idaho.

The last water-resource factor, lowland rivers, describes rivers that are near wetlands or coastal areas(Figure 111.29). Essentially all of the eastern Coastal Plain, despite its large population, has above-averageavailability of this type of resource. In addition, portions of several states in the Mississippi River Basin nearits southern end (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana), and several hundred miles north (Iowa, Illinois, Wiscon-sin) have relatively greater access to these resources. Other clusters of counties occur along the Canadianborder from Minnesota to Washington, portions of Washington around the Puget Sound, and northern Califor-nia and western Oregon.

Developed winter resources, the first snow factor, are most available to people living in the Middle-Atlantic and New England states, the upper lake states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota), and the mountain-ous areas of the West (Figure 111.30). Availability of public land and agricultural land that can be used forwinter sports (the second winter resource factor, undeveloped winter resources) is above average in the West,starting as far east as the Dakotas, western Nebraska, Colorado, and New Mexico, but not including the south-western portion of California (Figure 111.31). The only other county with above-average abundance of theseresources is Aroostook County at the very northern end of Maine.

About one-third of counties have an above-average availability measure for not more than two resourcefactors. These counties are clustered in an arc that extends from northern Texas, through most of Oklahomaand Kansas, eastern Nebraska, most of Missouri, the southern portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, most ofKentucky and Tennessee, and into northeastern Alabama and the northern half of Georgia.

In contrast, only about 210 counties have above-average availability for 10 or more resource factors.These counties are in three separate groupings. One group is a crescent starting in northwestern New Mexico,and continuing west and north through Arizona to include most of California and most of the western halvesof Oregon and Washington. Another cluster contains the Catskills and Adirondacks in New York, and most ofthe New England region that lies to the east and north of there. The smallest cluster of these counties occursin a band of central Florida counties, that run across the peninsula roughly from Tampa to Orlando and CapeCanaveral.

Regional Comparisons

In this section, we compare percentages of counties in various geographic regions that are above thenational average in resource availability for each resource type. More importantly, we look at the proportionof the population in each region that lives in counties that have above-average resource availability.

The resource types that are most geographically concentrated across the United States are the firstland-based factor, great outdoors, and the second winter resource factor, undeveloped winter resources (Table111.37). Fewer than 20 percent of counties have above-average access to these types of resources. Conversely,over 40 percent of counties in the United States have above average availability to three resource types: stateand private forests and other federal land.

Outdoor Recreation Resources I 73

Table 111.37: Percentage of Counties with Above Average Recreation Availability Index Values byRecreation Resource Type and Region

Recreation ResourceType North South

RegionRocky Mountain Pacific Coast U.S. Total

Local Facilities 34.4 29.3 6.0 64.7 28.1Open Space 79.6 1.6 24.1 91.0 35.8Great Outdoors 1.3 2.2 42.5 100.0 13.8Wildlife Land 47.2 69.2 10.2 16.5 48.2State & Private Forests 49.5 43.3 15.1 97.7 42.3Western Land 3.8 17.6 93.5 69.2 29.6Camping Areas 68.2 15.4 17.8 54.9 35.1Other Federal Land 44.7 29.7 44.0 95.5 40.2Large Water Bodies 26.9 25.2 22.7 93.2 28.2Whitewater 26.4 8.5 40.0 99.3 24.4Flatwater 31.3 32.3 30.8 19.6 31.1Lowland Rivers 30.5 42.2 18.4 69.9 34.9Developed Winter 50.8 0.3 30.9 100.0 27.3Undeveloped Winter 1.8 0.1 68.9 96.2 18.0

However, just looking at the number of counties that are located near these resource types can bemisleading. Of greater interest is the proportion of the regional population that lives in these counties. TableIII.38 shows that for the United States as a whole, only about five percent of the population lives in areas thathave above-average access to public wildlands (great outdoors) or undeveloped winter areas. Only about 10percent live in those primarily western counties with relatively abundant opportunities for open agriculturaland nonforest public land (western land). Conversely, nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population lives in areaswith above-average access to land set aside for habitat preservation (Wildlife Land), and just over half live incounties with better-than-average availability of state park and privately-owned forests (state and privateforests).

Table 111.38: Percentage of Regional Population Living in Counties with Above Average RecreationAvailability Index Values by Recreation Resource Type and Region

Recreation ResourceTme North South


Local Facilities 54.7 35.0 11.0 81.5 45.5Open Space 83.5 1.9 33.8 78.9 47.7Great Outdoors 0.4 1.8 37.7 100.0 5.6Wildlife Land 62.7 79.2 11.6 24.9 66.1State & Private Forests 58.0 44.9 15.9 94.7 51.9Western Land 0.8 9.0 83.2 78.1 10.1Camping Areas 76.5 12.3 20.6 75.9 47.7Other Federal Land 24.9 24.6 50.2 99.0 28.1Large Water Bodies 42.9 25.6 22.4 98.4 36.6

Whitewater 34.1 11.9 35.2 98.3 27.0Flatwater 23.9 26.1 23.5 25.9 24.8Lowland Rivers 41.2 41.4 8.8 67.2 40.6Developed Winter 57.0 0.7 29.4 100.0 34.0Undeveloped Winter 0.3 0.0 52.5 91.3 5.2


In the North, open space, the resource type that relates to greenways, rail-trails, and fairgrounds, isavailable to over four-fifths of the region’s population. In addition, three-fourths of the regional population hashigh levels of access to camping, hunting, and fishing opportunities (camping areas), and between 55 and 60percent have access to developed urban facilities (local facilities), skiing opportunities (developed winter),and state parks and private forest opportunities (state and private forests). However, less than one percent ofthe population in this region has above-average access to three of the resource types: FS/NPS/wilderness(great outdoors), large agricultural or public range tracts (western land), or winter access to undevelopedrange and agricultural acres (undeveloped winter).

Not surprisingly, only a very small proportion of residents of the South live in areas where winterrecreation resources are relatively abundant. In addition, only about two percent of the residents of thisregion live in counties where either NPS/FS/wilderness (great outdoors) or greenways and rail-trails (openspace) are abundant. However, nearly 80 percent of the population in this region lives in areas where thereare relatively high amounts of land set aside for habitat preservation (wildlife land).

In the Rocky Mountain region, over 80 percent of the population lives in areas with above-averageavailability of private agricultural, range, and BLM land (western land). Perhaps this is not surprising, giventhe regional concentration of BLM land. About half of the region’s population has above-average availability ofundeveloped winter resources. Only for flatwater and wetland resources is less than 10 percent of the popula-tion better situated than the national average.

The Pacific Coast region has by far the greatest access to recreation resources. For seven of the 14resource types, over 90 percent of the population in this region lives in areas with availability above thenational average. In fact, for skiing opportunities (developed winter) and for public wildland opportunities(great outdoors), all of the population in the Pacific Coast does better than the national average. In addition,over two-thirds of the population has above-average access to five other resource types. Less than half of theregion’s population lives in areas with comparatively high access for only for two resource types, land set asidefor habitat preservation (wildlife land) and flatwater/wetland resources (flatwater). Even for these two, aboutone-fourth of the regional population is better off than the national average.

Table 111.39: Percent of Regional Population Living in Counties with Stable or Increasing RecreationAvailability Index Values by Recreation Resource Type and Region, 1987-1997

Recreation ResourceType North South


Local Facilities 41.3 94.6 1.7 6.8 57.6Open Space 100.0 99.8 100.0 100.0 99.9Great Outdoors 2.3 72.8 28.0 22.3 28.8Wildlife Land 69.7 52.3 61.4 82.6 66.1State & Private Forests 100.0 69.0 48.9 45.9 74.2Western Land 26.3 42.3 3.8 2.0 26.3Camping Areas 9.6 36.3 43.3 2.4 19.5Other Federal Land 0.7 46.6 9.6 0.0 15.4Large Water Bodies 1.4 31.9 67.1 4.0 16.2Whitewatcr 35.8 88.1 so.9 40.6 54.0Flatwater 0.7 10.1 5.4 55.4 8.5Lowland Rivers 100.0 98.3 98.4 99.8 99.3Developed Winter 100.0 91.8 72.0 29.9 85.7Undcvclopcd Winter 12.9 91.4 15.5 20.8 38.7

Changes since 1987

To examine the changes over the last 10 years in the availability of the 14 resource types, index valueswere calculated using resource counts and population that existed about 10 years ago. We examine the por-tion of the population that had stable or increasing per-capita resource availability over the 10 years (Table111.39). Where the population percentage shown in Table III.39 is low, most of the population lives in areaswhcrc the per-capita resource availability declined. Thus, we also highlight resource types for which per-


capita availability is worsening. These declines may or may not signify reductions in the resource base. Per-capita availability can decline if growth in resources does not keep pace with growth in population. On theother hand, increases in per-capita availability can only occur when resource growth is greater than popula-tion growth. Population has been growing in almost all counties in the United States.

Virtually all of the population in all of the regions have seen increases in greenways and rail-trails (openspace). Organizations promoting trail and greenway development have become much more prominent in thelast 10 years. Government funding to develop these types of resources also has increased, notably via ISTEAlegislation. All regions also had increases in lowland river resources. However, given the definition of thisresource type, we think this increase reflects more of a change in resource definition, such as reclassificationof acres from lowland rivers to wetlands, than an actual increase in resources.

All of the population of the North region saw stable to increased availability of state parks and privateforests (state and private forests), and of developed winter resources. These trends are consistent with find-ings in the earlier portion of this chapter that indicated increases in state park land, and increases in capacityof ski areas. Over two-thirds of the people in the North region live in counties that had stable or increasedavailability of land protected for wildlife habitat (wildlife land). In contrast, more than 90 percent of thepopulation in the North lived in areas that had declining per-capita availability for five of the resource types:(1) great outdoors resources that include FS, NPS, and designated wilderness areas, (2) camping opportuni-ties (camping arcas), (3) recreation opportunities on federal water-managing agency land (other federal land),(4) coastal resources and associated private businesses (large water bodies), and (5) flatwater and wetlandresources.

Despite relatively large population increases in the last 10 years, resource availability growth was moreconsistent in the South than in any other region. Over 90 percent of the population lived in areas with stableor increasing recreation supply for five of the resource types, including both types of urban resources (localfacilities and open space), both types of winter resources, and lowland river opportunities. The stability ofwinter resources is misleading. Many people in the South live where there were no opportunities 10 years ago,and there still are no opportunities for winter recreation. For all of the land resource types, at least 36 percentof the South’s population lived in areas that had stable or increasing per capita resource availability. TheSouth was the only region where more than half of the population lived in areas with increases in the GreatOutdoors resources-FS, NPS, and Wilderness (73 percent). The only resource factor for which over 90 per-cent of the South’s population had declining per-capita availability was flatwater and wetland resources.

The majority of the population in the Rocky Mountain region lived in areas with increasing or stable percapita resource availability for six of the 14 resource types. The six types are: open space (greenwaysltrails,100 percent), wildlife land (land set aside for habitat preservation, 61 percent), large water bodies and boatingopportunities (67 percent), whitewater and wild river resources (51 percent), lowland river resources (98percent), and developed winter skiing resources (72 percent). Because of stability in the federal resource baseand increasing population, there was a decline for almost all residents of this region for three resource types:great outdoors (FS, NPS, and Wilderness land); Western land (BLM and private agricultural land); and otherfederal land (land managed by federal water agencies). In addition, more than 90 percent of residents experi-enced reduced per-capita availability for flatwater and wetland resources.

The Pacific Coast Region was the only one where a majority of people lived in areas that had increasesin per capita availability of Flatwater and wetland recreation opportunities (55 percent). Other resource typesfor which a majority of the regional population had availability increases included: open space (greenway andtrail opportunities, 100 percent), wildlife land (habitat preservation land, 83 percent), and lowland riverresources (effectively 100 percent). On the other hand, this region was the only one in which less than half ofthe population had per capita increases in the availability of developed winter opportunities. Five resourcetypes had declining availability for over 90 percent of the population: local facilities (developed urban re-sources); western land (BLM and agricultural land); camping areas (camping opportunities); other federalland (BR and CE); and whitewater and wild river opportunities.

In general, opportunities for factors that relate to developed resources are increasing or at least keepingpace with population growth in most regions of the country. Developed camping opportunities appear to be anexception. Here, population growth has exceeded resource growth, especially in the Northeast and along thePacific Coast. In addition, resource types centered on land, water, and river resources that receive preserva-tion protection from conservation groups, state park systems, or the federal government also have had stableor growing levels of availability for many Americans.

Per-capita availability of several types of resources is declining. For some of them, the reduction stemsfrom a fixed resource base coupled with an increasing population. Examples include beaches and coastalareas, and opportunities provided at small federal land-managing agencies, such as TVA or CE. For other


resource types, the cause of decline is shrinkage in the resource base. Examples here include private agricul-tural land, fee areas for hunting and fishing, and wetlands in some areas.

CONCLUSION

Across all levels of government, there appears to be a noticeable trend toward increasing the number,quality, and scope of developed land-based facilities. This trend includes increased service levels at bothpublic and private campgrounds, more resort-like character at both federal and state recreation facilities, andclosures of small, lower quality areas. Federal agencies have increasingly adopted a customer orientation inthe way they provide services. Meanwhile, sustainability and ecosystem health continue to receive heavyemphasis. Similarly, state park agencies work to strike the proper balance between providing services andprotecting their resources. There have been increases in the number of private businesses that provide accessto and services on public land. At the same time, there has been continued pressure to preserve the wild areasthat remain. Federal and state Wilderness holdings and land owned by conservation groups have grown in thelast 10 years.

Growth in trail resources has been substantial, especially in the North. Most states have establishedformal trails programs. Rail-trail conversions, and growth in the National Recreation Trail System have beenconcentrated in the North Region. Greenway development is prevalent in the North and throughout thecountry. The fact that many greenways are developed in and around cities increases their significance. Localinitiatives in combination with ISTEA Transportation Enhancement funds were responsible for much of thisactivity. Compared to the situation a decade ago, the development of greenways and other linear recreationpaths must rank as one of the most significant outdoor recreation trends in the United States.

Another significant trend has been the rise of two umbrella programs that have emphasized partner-ships, namely the Watchable Wildlife and Scenic Byway programs that have sprouted across the country inthe past 10 years. Their emphasis has been to involve all levels of government, the private sector, and citizens’groups to increase the accessibility of wildlife viewing and scenic driving opportunities. Just as important isthe goal of protecting and appreciating the resources and relaying that message through education and inter-pretation.

In general, the U.S. water resource base has been stable. Acreage in lakes and reservoirs has increasedslightly, but this growth has closely paralleled population growth. We presume most of these increases are tiedto reservoirs supplying water for residential use. The trend to increase the amount of and level of protectionof river resources has continued, as indicated by increases in both state and federal designations of importantriver segments, and by increases in National Recreation Areas, which often include water features.

Developed facilities for winter recreation have increased across the country. Downhill ski areas haveincreased their capacity in all regions. Opportunities for cross country skiing and snowmobiling on trails andparkland have grown especially in the North, and the number of cross-country areas has grown. However,private forest and agricultural land, which supported much of this activity in the past has continued to beconverted to other uses or it has been closed to the public.


REFERENCES

Agyagos, F., Watt, B., & Persons, W. R. (1990). Urban lake compliunce survey-Phoenix MetropolitanArea. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

American Automobile Association. (1995). Scenic byways of the United States and Canada. Heathrow,FL: Author.

Androscoggin Land Trust. (1996, September). Maine Landowner Liability Explained.Backman, S. J., & Veldkamp, C. (1995). Examination of the relationship between service quality and

user loyalty. Journul of Purk and Recreation Administration, 13(2), 29-41.Beeler, C. S. (1993). Nutional comprehensiwe salary and benefits study. Arlington, VA: National Recre-

ation and Park Association.Brown, T. L. (1993a). Forest conservation, forest recreution and tourism and the forest industry:

Interrelationships and compatibility. A Briefing Paper to the Northern Forest Lands Council. October 7,1993.

Brown, T. L. (1993b). Outdoor recreation and tourism studies applied to the northern forest lands:Literature reoiew and unalysis. Northern Forest Lands Council, Recreation and Tourism Subcommittee.

Browning, J. A,, Hendee, J. C., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1988). 103 wilderness laws: Milestones andmunagement direction in wilderness legislation, 1964-1987. Station Bulletin 51. Moscow, ID: University ofIdaho.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. (1973). Outdoor recreation - a legacy for America. Appendix A: Aneconomic analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. (1989). SCORP planning in review: A compendium andanalysis of current statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation planning documents. Sacramento, CA: Au-thor.

Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J. C., Hartmann, L. A., & English, D. B. K. (1990). An analysis outdoorrecreution und wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040 (General Technical Report RM-189).Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Crompton, J., & Lamb, C., Jr. (1986). Marketing gooernment and social services. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

DeLoney, J., Eley, R., & Dziekan, K. (1996). 1995 Texus outdoor recreution plun-assessment undpolicy plun. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (Eds.), (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Ven-ture.

Dwyer, J. F. (1990). Wildland management near large urban centers: The need for diversity. In D. Lime(Ed.), Proceedings of managing America’s enduring wilderness resource (pp. 318-324). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Dwyer, J. F. (1994). Customer diversity and thefiture demand for outdoor recreation (General Tech-nical Report RM-252). Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation.

Dwyer, J. F. (1995a). Multicultural values: Responding to cultural diversity. In J. L. Thompson, D. W.Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.), Proceedings of the Fourth Internutionul Outdoor Recreation undTourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 Nutional Recreation Resource Planning Conference (pp. 227-230). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Dwyer, J. F. (1995b). Changing population demographics: Implications for recreation resources man-agement. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.), Proceedings of the FourthInternational Outdoor Recreation und Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Re-source Planning Conference (pp. 245-248). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Dwyer, J. F. (1995~). Challenges in meeting urban and near-urban recreation needs with limited re-sources: An overview. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.), Proceedings of theFourth Internutionul Outdoor Recreation und Tourism Trends Symposium und the 1995 National Recre-ation Resource Planning Conference (pp. 599-602). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Dwyer, .J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the benefits andcosts of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(5), 227-234.

Dwyer, J. F. & Schroeder, H. W. (1994). The human dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry,92(10), 12-15.


Dwyer, J. F. & Stewart, S. I. (199.5). Restoring urban recreation opportunities: An overview with illustra-tions. In J. I,. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.), Proceedings ofthe Fourth Inter-nutionul Outdoor Recreution und Tourism Trends Symposium und the 1995 Nutionul Recreution ResourcePlunning Conference (pp. 606-609). St. Paul MN: University of Minnesota.

Dziekan, K., DeLoney, J., & Eley, R. (1997). Becoming an outdoors-womun: Socio-demographic profileof workshop purticipunts. Workshops held October 1993-February 1997. Austin, TX: Consumer ResearchProgram Area, Communications Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Fabos, J. G. (1995). Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials ofgrecnways. Lundscupe und Urban Plunning, 33(l), l-13.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1988). Scenic bywuys. Washington, D.C.: US Department ofTransportation.

Federal Highway Administration. (1991). Nutionul scenic bywuys study. Washington, D.C.: US Depart-ment of Transportation.

Federal Highway Administration. (1996). Scenic bywuys. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Trans-portation.

Federal Highway Administration. (1997a). The Nutionul Scenic Bywuys Program: FY92-97 in Review.Washington, D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

Federal Highway Administration. (1997b). Nutionul Economic Crossrouds Trunsportution EfficiencyAct: Key informution. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

Gobster, P. H. (1995). Perceptions and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Lund-scupe und &bun Plunning, 33, 401-413.

Gobster, P. H. & Dickhut, K. R. (1995). Exploring interspace: Open space opportunities in dense urbanareas. In C. Kollin and M. Barratt (Eds.), Inside urbun ecosystems: Proceedings of the Seventh National&bun Forestry Conference (pp. 70-73). Washington D.C.: American Forests.

Godbey, G., Graefe, A., & James, S. W. (1992). The benefits of locul recreution und park services: Anutionwide study of the perceptions of the Americun public. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and ParkAssociation.

Goldbloom, A. (1991). 1991 Citizen survey on Texus stute parks. Austin, TX: Statewide Planning andResearch, Public Lands Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism plunning-busies, concepts, cuses. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.Hardt, M. M., & Hastings, W. (199.5). Local, metropolitan, and regional greenways. In J. L. Thompson, et

al. (camp.), (1995, May 14-17), Proceedings of the Fourth Internutionul Outdoor Recreution and TourismTrends Symposium and the 199.5 Nutionul Recreation Resource Plunning Conference, St. Paul, MN.

Henson, L. D. (1988). Memo to regional foresters regarding fiscal year 1988 accomplishment. Washing-ton, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.

Hull, R. B. IV, & Ulrich, R. (1992). Health benefits and costs of urban forests. In P. Rodbell (Ed.), Alli-unces for community trees: Proceedings of the Fifth Nutionul &bun Forestry Conference (pp. 69-72). Wash-ington D.C.: American Forestry Association.

Hurt, H. III. (1997, August 11). Parks brought to you by... U.S. News & World Report, 123(6), 42-45.Ibrahim, H., & Cordes, K. A. (1993). Outdoor recreution. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.Jackson, R. S., Stynes, D. J., Propst, D. B., & Carlson, B. D. (1996). A summary of the nation& and state

economic effects of the 1994 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Recreution Progrum (Technical Report, R-96-l).Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Jacobs, P. (1997, April 28). Boom in holdings puts wildlife agency to test. Los Angeles Times, pp. l-4.Jensen, C. R. (1995). Outdoor recreution in Americu (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press..Jimenez, R. (1997, April 20). An experiment in backcountry. Boston Globe, pp. NHI, NH7.Jolley, H. (1969). The Blue Ridge Purkwuy. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.Kelly, J. T., Cornelssen, C., & Bailey, M. (1996). Military base closures can change lands to parks. Purks

and Recreution, 31(l), 70-76.Knudson, D. M. (1984). Outdoor recreation (Rev. ed.). New York: MacMillan.LaPage, W. F. (1995). Parklands as paradox: The search for logic in the public’s parklands. Journul of

Purk und Recreution Administrution, 13(4), l-12.Little, C. E. (1990). Greenwuys for America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Maine Snowmobile Program. (1997, March 3). Communication.Marvel, W. (1997, June 7). Have fun on paper company land. The Conwuy Duily Sun, pp. 1, 16.Mastran, S. (1992). The protection of Americu’s scenic bywuys. Information Series No. 68,1992. Wash-

ington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.


McEwen, D., & Profaizer, L. (1989). Trends in private and public campgrounds, 1978-1987. Trends,26(2), 24-29.

Moore, R. L. (1994). Stute truil programs: A surwey of stuce trail udministrutors. Denver, CO: TheNational Association of State Trail Administrators.

More, T. A., Dustin, D. L., & Knopf, R.C. (1996). Behavioral consequences of campground user fees.Journul of Purk und Recreution Administration, 14(l), 81-93.

Mueller, G. (1996). Establishment of a fish community in the Hayden-Rhodes and Salt-Gila Aqueducts,Arizona. North Americun Journul of Fisheries Munugement,16(4), American Fisheries Society.

Mueller, G., & Liston, C. R. (1994). Evaluation of tire reefs for enhancing aquatic communities in con-crete-lined canals. North American Journul of Fisheries Munugement, 14(3), American Fisheries Society.

National Access and Travel Management Strategy Team. (1992). Truael munugement: Bringing peopleand pluces together. Report of the National Access and Travel Management Strategy Team. Washington D.C.:USDA Forest Service.

National Association of State Park Directors. (1996). 1996 unnual informution exchange: Stute parkscutisticul dutu for the yew ending June 30, 199.5. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

National Forest Scenic Byways Inventory (database). (1996). Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.National Scenic Byways Program. (1995, May 18). Federul Register: 60(96), 26759-26762. Washington,

D.C.: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration.Newman, R. J. (1997, February 24). Who needs skis? U.S. News & World Report, 122(7), 58-60.Northern Forest Lands Council. (1994, September). Finding common ground: Conserwing the north-

ern forest. Portsmouth, NH: Northern Forest Lands Council.Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (1962). Economic studies of outdoor recreation

(ORRRC Report 24). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Overbay, J. (1993). Statement of James Overbay, Deputy Chief, Forest Service, United States Depart-

ment of Agriculture before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Committee onNatural resources, United States House of Representatives, Concerning Problems with Access to Public Lands.(November 9).

Peterson, M. R. (1996). Wilderness by state mandate: A survey of state-designated wilderness areas.Nuturul Areas Journul, 16(3), 192-197.

PKF Consulting. (1995). LocuZ purk und recreution futilities und sites. Arlington, VA: National Recre-ation and Park Association.

Poole, W. (1997). Window on the wilderness. Lund und People, 9(l), 2-6.President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. (1986). Report and recommendations to the Presi-

dent of the United Scutes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Reynolds, G. R. (1996). Memo to Regional Foresters regarding FY 96 Rights-of way Acquisition Accom-

plishment. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.Robertson, D. (1988, August 29). Memo co regionalforesters (Memorandum). Washington, D.C.: USDA

Forest Service.Robertson, F. D. (1992). Memo in the National Access and Travel Management Conference, August,

1991. Denver, CO: USDA Forest Service.Satchell, M. (1997a, January 20). Clinton’s ‘mother of all land-grabs.’ U.S. News & World Report, 122(2),

42-44.Satchell, M. ( 1997b, July 21). Parks in peril. U.S. News & World Report, 123(6), 22-28.Schoener, G. (1997, May 13). ISTEA: Where it stunds: Where it’s headed. Paper presented at the Scenic

America National Training Conference, Baltimore, MD.Schroeder, H. W. & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites.

Journul of Leisure Reseurch, 16(2), 178-194.Searns, R. M. (1995). The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form. Landscape and

Urbun Plunning, 33(l), 65-80.Shands, W. (1990). Showcases of excellence. In Nutionul Recreution Areus: A Showcase For Excel-

lence, FS-442. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.Simmons, D. (1996). Teaching in natural areas: What urban teachers feel is most appropriate. Enoiron-

mentul Educution Reseurch, 2(2), 149-157.Stankey, G. H. (1984). Wilderness preservation activity at the state level: A national review. Natural

Areus Journul, 4(4), 20-28.State Task Force on Texas Nature Tourism. (1994). Nuture tourism in the Lone Scar State: Economic

opportunities in nuture. Report submitted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Depart-ment of Commerce. Austin, Texas.


Stewart, S. I. (1995). Challenges in meeting urban and near-urban needs with limited resources: Asummary of the workshop discussion. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.),Proceedings of the Fourth Internationul Outdoor Recreution und Tourism Trends Symposium und the 1995Nutional Recreation Resource Plunning Conference (pp. 603-605). St. Paul MN: University of Minnesota.

Tennessee Valley Authority. (1988). The TVA Hundbook. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Valley Authority.Tetreault, B. (1997, June 9). Opening ceremonies held for Phillips Brook Recreation Area. The Berlin

Duily Sun, pp. 1, 7.Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. (1994). Nuturul ugendu-u strutegic plunfor Texus Purks und

Wildlife 199.5-l 999. Austin, TX: Author.Tice, R. D. (1997, April 1997). Letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt from R. Dean Tice,

Executive Director, National Recreation and Park Association, dated March 12, 1997, in Purks und Recre-ution, p. 8.

Tracy, P. (1997, June 6). New ret area is paradise. The Union Leuder, p. B3.Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. (no date). Locked Out: How private owners are turning public lands-

your lands, your constituents’ lands-into their own private property by seizing control of access roads andlocking the gates. Washington, D.C.: Times Mirror Magazines, Inc., 1705 DeSales St, NW, Suite 801, 20036.

Tynon, J. F., Harding, J. A., & Chavez, D. J. (1998). Nutionul recreution truils: An oweruiew. Paperpresented at 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Conference, April 6-8, Bolton Landing, NY, pp. 225227.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1997). NuturuLLI resource munugement system. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters.

United States Army Engineer Missouri River Division. (1994). Muster wuter control munucd, MissouriRiver review: Review und updute, Volume 6~: Economic studies, recreution economics. Omaha, NE: Author.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (1990). NutionuZ recreution ureus: A show-cuse for excellence. FS-442. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (1997). WiZdZtfe opportunities report. Unpub-lished document. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Program.

United States Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, US. Army Engineer, North Pa-cific Division, & U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (1994). Columbia River system operution review druft enwiron-mentul impuct stutement, Appendix J: Recreution. Portland, OR: Authors.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (1993, December 17). BLMhandbook 83.57-I-bywuys. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (1996, July 29). BLM buckcountry bywuys muster list. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1993). Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/ Environmental Impact Report. Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1995). Operution of Glen CunyonDumfinul environmentul impuct stutement. Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1987-1996, Annual). Nutionul PurkService stutisticul ubstruct. Denver, CO: Author, Public Use Statistics Program Center.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1995). The nutionul purks: Index1995. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1996a). FederuZ Lunds-to-parks pro-grum: Buse closure stutus list by stute. Unpublished report.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1996b). Americun discowery truil.Nutionul truil feusibility study, Vol. 1: Environmentul ussessment. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1996~). American discooery trail.Nutionul trail feasibility study. Vol. 2: Description of the truil corridor. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1997). 1997 Nutionul Purk Servicestrutegic plun. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United States General Accounting Office. (1992, April). Federul Funds: Reasonsfor und effects of inud-eyuute public uccess. Briefing report to the chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands,Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED-92-116BR. Washington,D.C.

United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Federul lund munugement: Stutus und uses of wil-derness study ureus. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED-93-151.

I


Urbina, R. (1997). TPWD recreution grunts trucking system. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife De-partment, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. (1994, March.)Chapter 3: “Public outdoor recreation on privately-owned Lands Task Group Report.” In Vermont recreationplun: Tusk group report. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. (1997). Publicrecreution on private lund: A landowner’s guide. Draft. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Vickerman, S. (1989). Wutchuble wild&e: A new Initiative. Portland, OR: Defenders of Wildlife.Wall, K., & Crompton, J. (1995). The revenue implications of changing duily entrunce fees to per-

person pricing ut Texus stute parks. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Westphal, L. M. (1993). Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations. In. P. H. Gobster

(Ed.), Munuging urbun und high use recreution settings. Selected papers from the Urban Forestry and Eth-nic Minorities and the Environment Paper Sessions at the 4th North American Symposium on Society andResource Management (General Technical Report NC-163), (pp. 19-23). St. Paul MN: USDA Forest ServiceNorth Central Forest Experiment Station.

Westphal, L. M. & Gobster, P H. (1995). Legacy of the Clean Water Act: Impacts of water quality onurban river recreation. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comps.), Proceedings ofthe Fourth Internutionul Outdoor Recreation and Tourism l?ends Symposium und the 199SNutionul Recre-ution Resource Plunning Conference (pp. 620-624). St. Paul MN: University of Minnesota.

Zinser, C. I. (199.5). Outdoor recreution: United States nutionul purks, forests, und public lands. NewYork: John Wiley and Sons.

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans

Arizona State Parks Board. (1994). 1994 Arizona. stutewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan.Phoenix, AZ.

Center for Policy Research and Planning, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. (1990). 1990Mississippi stutewide comprehensive outdoor recreution plun. Jackson, MS.

California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. (1994). Cul%$orniu outdoor recre-ution plun 1993. Sacramento, CA.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. (1990). Deluwure outdoors1990. Dover, DE.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks. (1994). Outdoorrecreution in Floridu 1994. Tallahassee, FL.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Parks Recreation, and Historic Sites Division. (1995). 199.5Georgiu stutewide comprehensive outdoor recreution plan. Atlanta, GA.

Idaho Parks and Recreation Board. (1989) 1990 Centennial Edition: Iduho Outdoor Recreution Plan.Boise, ID.

Illinois Department of Conservation. (1989). The Illinois outdoor recreution plun 1988-1993. Spring-field, IL.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. (1994). 1994-l 999 Indiunu statewide comprehensive out-door recreution plun. Indianapolis, IN.

Kentucky Department of Local Government. (1989). 1989 Assessment und policy plun for outdoorrecreution. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Frankfort, KY.

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of State Parks. (1995). Louisianastutewide comprehensive outdoor recreution plun. Baton Rouge, LA.

Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources and Trade and Economic Development. (1989). Minnesota’soutdoor legucy: Strutegies for the 90s stutewide comprehensive outdoor recreution plun for 1990-l 994. St.Paul, MN.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks. (1996). Missouri statewide compre-hensive outdoor recreation plan 1996 to 2001. Jefferson City, MO.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Planning and Programming Division. (1991). Nebraska stute-wide comprehensive outdoor recreution plan: Assessment und policy plun 1991-l 99.5. Lincoln, NE.

New Hampshire Office of State Planning. (1994). New Humpshire outdoors 1994-1999: Statewide com-prehensive outdoor recreution plun. Concord, NH.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (1989). The Commonwealth of New Jersey: tit-door recreution resources plun summary. Trenton, NJ.


New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Parks and Recreation Division. (1991).Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan for New Mexico. Santa Fe, NM.

New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. (1994). 1994 New York statewidecomprehensive outdoor recreation plan: People, resources, recreation. Albany, NY.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. (1996). North Dakota 1996-2000 statewide compre-hensive outdoor recreation plan. Bismarck, ND.

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of Planning and Development. (1992). Okla-homa outdoor recreation assessment and planning 1992. Oklahoma City, OK.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Policy and Planning Division. (1995). Oregon outdoor recre-ation plan 1994-l 999. Salem, OR.

Rhode Island Department of Administration and Department of Environmental Management, Divisionof Planning. (1992). Ocean State outdoors: Rhode Island’s comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Provi-dence, RI.

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. (1996). 1995 South Carolina statewidecomprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Columbia, SC.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. (1996). 199.5 Texas outdoor recreation plan-assessment andpolicy plan. Austin, TX.

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. (1992). 1992 Utah statewidecomprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Salt Lake City, UT.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. (1993). Vermontrecreation plan: Assessment and policy plan 1993. Montpelier, VT: Author.

West Virginia Development Office. (1993). West Virginia statewide comprehensive outdoor recreationplan 1993-l 997. Charleston, WV.